On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 19:55:25 -0800, Russell T. Cannon wrote:
[...]
RC>As a creationist (OEC), I must express my dismay at the importance other
>creationists are placing on macroevolution. It seems to me that the
>whole thrust of the debate is completely off track. We are at risk of
>being marginalized again as has happened before due to our failure to
>cast the debate properly. We could not accept a heliocentric solar
>system, so we obstinately clung to geocentrism despite all empirical
>data to the contrary. We saw circles as more perfect than elispses and
>could not attribute the latter to the work of a perfect Designer. We
>held a young earth to be more agreeable to our interpretation of
>scripture thus rejecting the true age of the universe and the earth.
There is a danger you are playing into atheist's hands by blaming
"creationists" for errors that were, held by pagan Greek philosophers
and scientists:
"The apparent motions of the planets, until they have been very
profoundly analysed, appear to be irregular and complicated, and not
at all such as a Pythagorean Creator would have chosen. It was
obvious to every Greek that the heavens ought to exemplify
mathematical beauty, which would only be the case if the planets
moved in circles. This would be especially evident to Plato, owing to
his emphasis on the good. The problem thus arose: is there any
hypothesis which will reduce the apparent disorderliness of planetary
motions to order and beauty and simplicity? If there is, the idea of the
good will justify us in asserting this hypothesis. Aristarchus of Samos
found such a hypothesis: that all the planets, including the earth, go
round the sun in circles...It was revived by Copernicus, and its
success might seem to justify Plato's aesthetic bias in astronomy."
(Russell B., "History of Western Philosophy", 1961, pp145-146).
But I agree that creationists run the risk of being marginalized (or
rather remaining marginalized-since we already are!), if we set up
flawed criteria of what is, and is not, the work of a perfect
Designer. Paradoxically anti-design critics are our most precious
resource because by their virulent attacks they help us to build a
more robust Intelligent Design model! Survival of the fittest in
action!!
RC>Now, we cannot imagine the Designer using any but supernatural
>mechanisms in creation--despite evidence that He used such mechanisms at
>other times--so we reject all arguments that allow for natural
>mechanisms.
This seems to be overstating it. I doubt if even the most rabid
apologist for the ICR rejects *all* arguments that allow for natural
mechanisms. The real problem is *apriori thinking*. Just as
naturalists (theistic and atheistic) reject on apriori grounds
arguments that allow for supernatural intervention, so creationists
should not go to the other extreme and reject apriori arguments that
allow for natural mechanisms.
RC>This stand against macroevolution is only the latest of a long history
>of misdirected arguments. Actually, the issue of whether macroevolution
>has occurred or not is wholly irrelevant to the creationist position.
It would indeed be a "misdirected argument" if in fact macroevolution
*has* occurred. But since leading Darwinists Dawkins and Gould
publicly disagree violently with each other over the mechanisms of
macroevolution (Gould S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York
Review of Books, June 12, 1997. http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/
WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F), it would be premature (to say the
least), to concede in advance that it had occurred. IOW, if in fact God
did supernaturally intervene in the origin of high-level taxa, I would
have thought that would be *very* relevant to the creationist position.
RC>On the scientific side, the issue is not whether speciation has occurred
>by natural mechanisms (macroevolution)
Speciation by natural mechanisms is not macroevolution. Gould
destinguishes macroevolution (large-scale) from microevolution
(small-scale):
"The strict [Darwinist] version, with its emphasis on copious, minute,
random variation molded with excruciating but persistent slowness by
natural selection, also implied that all events of large-scale evolution
(macroevolution) were the gradual, accumulated product of
innumerable steps, each a minute adaptation to changing conditions
within a local population. This "extrapolationist" theory denied any
independence to macroevolution and interpreted all large-scale
evolutionary events (origin of basic designs, long-term trends,
patterns of extinction and faunal turnover) as slowly accumulated
microevolution (the study of small-scale changes within species)."
(Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", 1986, p13)
"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous
changes to the most profound structural transitions in the history of
life: by a long series of insensibly graded intermediate steps, birds are
linked to reptiles, fish with jaws to their jawless ancestors.
Macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing more than
microevolution (flies in bottles) extended. If black moths can displace
white moths in a century, then reptiles can become birds in a few
million years by the smooth and sequential summation of countless
changes. The shift of gene frequencies in local populations is an
adequate model for all evolutionary processes - or so the current
orthodoxy states." (Gould S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful
Monster", in "The Panda's Thumb", 1990, p156)
That a population of finches on the Galapagos Islands may naturally
divide into two reproductively isolated groups, and hence become
new species (microevolution), tells us little or nothing how birds
arose in the first place (microevolution).
RC>...the issue is whether natural mechanisms account for everything
>from the Big Bang to the present. On the metaphysical side, the
>issue is not whether the Gardener cultivated His field; the issue is
>just how much intelligent manipulation of nature was required to
>achieve His purposes.
I think it is deeper than that. God could have exquisitely designed the
initial conditions and upheld physical laws to generate everything else
from before the Big Bang. This would be the minimally sufficient for
theism. But the materialist-naturalists who totally dominate modern
science won't even allow that to be taught in schools. But of course
if a God exists who can fine-tune His creation before the Big Bang,
there is no good reason to deny apriori that He may have intervened
at strategic points in His creation after the Big Bang.
RC>I would prefer to formulate the debate differently. Instead of
>microevolution and macroevolution, I prefer to think in terms of the two
>theories of evolution: The Special Theory of Evolution and The General
>Theory of Evolution.
>
>The Special Theory of Evolution is expressed by two propositions:
>
>1. Changes occur to the genomes of species.
>
>2. These changes are caused and preserved by natural mechanisms.
>
>The proof of the Special Theory is in the fact that such changes have
>been observed to occur in nature and that their causes can be accounted
>for. Moreover, "micro" changes can theoretically--some say
>certainly--accumulate into "macro" changes--even to the formation of new
>species.
Agreed. This is uncontroversial. Even the ICR accepts that there is
microevolution, including speciation:
"The creationist movement has not remained static over recent
years...Microevolution-evolution within kinds, perhaps even involving
the emergence of new variant species by means of natural selection-is
now nearly universally accepted among creationists. (Ratzsch D.L.,
"The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, p81)
RC>The General Theory of Evolution is also expressed by two propositions:
>
>1. Natural mechanisms account for all changes to the genomes of all
>species.
>
>2. All biodiversity on earth is attributable to these natural
>mechanisms.
>
>The proof of the General Theory would be established by thorough models
>of physiological and biochemical evolution derived from a complete
>fossil record and extensive analysis of the preserved DNA of ancient
>species. Moreover, all extra-natural activity must be completely and
>impartially discounted.
I can't see a clear distinction between the Special and General Theory
of Evolution. What is the difference between:
"1. Changes occur to the genomes of species."
and
"1. Natural mechanisms account for all changes to the genomes of all
species."
Or between:
"2. These changes are caused and preserved by natural mechanisms."
and
2. All biodiversity on earth is attributable to these natural
mechanisms."
Denton makes a good distinction between Darwin's Special and General
theories:
"In his book Darwin is actually presenting two related but quite
distinct theories. The first, which has sometimes been called the
"special theory", is relatively conservative and restricted in scope and
merely proposes that new races and species arise in nature by the
agency of natural selection...The second theory, which is often called
the "general theory", is far more radical. It makes the claim that the
"special theory" applies universally and hence that the appearance of
all the manifold diversity of life on Earth can be explained by a simple
extrapolation of the processes which bring about relatively trivial
changes such as those seen on the Galapagos Islands. This "general
theory" is what most people think of when they refer to evolution
theory.' (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, p44)
RC>The Special Theory stands as thoroughly proved as Einsteins Laws of
>Relativity. One might as well argue for a flat earth as to try to
>refute the Special Theory of Evolution. The General Theory, however, is
>not only unproved but, even if true, is probably impossible to prove.
Good point. In fact Dobzhansky, the co-founder of Neo-Darwinism, admitted
that such macro-evolutionary are impossible to prove:
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as
it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the
experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes
is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved,
which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it
is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when
they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they would magnanimously
accept as satisfactory." (Dobzhansky T., American Scientist, vol. 45,
December 1957, p388), in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis", 1994, pp277-278)
RC>And, this is exactly where the religious faith of the materialistic
>evolutionist comes in. The General Theory is ASSUMED to be true because
>only naturalistic arguments and conclusions are allowed. The General
>Theory has become the Great Naturalistic World View.
Agreed. In fact Harvard genetics professor Richard Lewontin, in a
review of Sagan's last book "Demon-Haunted World", admitted that
modern science has deliberately chosen to be materialistic in
order to not "allow a Divine Foot in the door":
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some
of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a
prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the
methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a
material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary,
that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to
create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that
produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no
matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism
is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The
eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could
believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent
deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be
ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Johnson P.E., "The Unraveling
of Scientific Materialism", First Things, No. 77, November 1997,
pp22-25. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html)
RC>This is not a scientific statement at all except insofar as Science has
>been erected as the supreme discoverer and arbiter of Truth conscerning
>Cosmic and Human origins. Of course, this all depends on definitions.
>If by Cosmos, Sagan meant everything there is, then he was simply being
>redundant: Everything is all there is. This is true but hardly worth
>saying. If, however, by Cosmos he means the natural universe and that
>it is all there is, then an entirely different situation arises: He is
>asserting the unknowable as if it were a basic theorem of Science.
RC>It is as Carl Sagan expressed at the beginning of his Cosmos television
>series:
>
>"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."
>
>Is not this exactly how Darwinian Materialism has been transformed.
>When the mathematicians and astrophysicists pulled down the eternal
>universe of Darwin's time and replaced it with an impossibly young one,
>did Darwin's theory die? No. It was transmogrified from theory to
>axiom--how lucky we were the dice roll came up right on the first
>throw. All things considered, it was the first throw.
Indeed. When Lord Kelvin worked out from the rate of cooling (no
one knew about radioactive heating) that the earth could not have
been as Darwin's theory required, Darwin simply invented a deux ex
machina speed-up of the early earth:
"Here we encounter a formidable objection; for it seems doubtful
whether the earth, in a fit state for the habitation of living creatures,
has lasted long enough. Sir W. Thompson concludes that the
consolidation of the crust can hardly have occurred less than 20 or
more than 100 million years ago, but probably not less than 98 or
more than 200 million years...It is, however, probable, as Sir William
Thompson [Lord Kelvin] insists, that the world at a very early period
was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical
conditions than those now occurring; and such changes would have
tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate in the organisms
which then existed." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species", 6th
Edition, [1872], Everyman's Library, 1967 reprint, p315).
Darwin was ultimately proved right in his original expectation that the
world had to be older than Kelvin's 20-100 million years, but that
does not change the fact that to him it wouldn't matter if Kelvin was
right-the theory was very adaptable! To paraphrase Huxley, no ugly
fact would be allowed to slay Darwin's beautiful theory! Darwin's
elder brother Erasmus probably understood better than most what his
younger brother was really on about-his comments after reading the
origin are spot on:
"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if
the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my
feeling." (Erasmus Darwin, letter 23 November 1859, in Darwin F.,
Ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin", [1902], Senate: London, 1995
Reprint, p215)
RC>Herein lies the arrogance of the materialist view. When the God of the
>Jewish Creation Myth is put forward as the Designer, the argument is
>excluded as "unscientific" because only naturalistic propositions and
>conclusions are permitted. But once that God has been pushed aside, all
>manner of metaphysical statements are made by the scientists--statements
>that are no more scientific than, "B'raysheet bara Elohim HaSh'myim
>HaEretz". Carl Sagan's religion can be openly taught and embraced in
>public classrooms, but mine cannot. Perhaps that is as it should be.
>We wouldn't want a captive audience to be taught something that might
>not be true, would we?
The real reason that Sagan's religion can be openly taught is because
his god is undemanding, and is therefore acceptable to self-willed
moderns, as Paul foretold:
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound
doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around
them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to
hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to
myths." (2Tim 4:3-4)
Happy new year.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------