On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:32:30 -0800, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>SJ>>Dawkins is right that naturalistic evolution can only
>>>happen by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
>DM>A bit simplistic, but essentially right.
CL>Since all three of you agree on this, could one of you
>elaborate a little? What are Neo-Darwinian mechanisms?
>Which mechanisms are excluded?
I will try to answer this as simply as possible.
Basically random genetic mutations which confer some heritable
advantage to the animal or plant in the local environment in which
they occur. This advantage enables the plant or animal to survive
and reproduce and thus leave more descendents. Thus it is said
to be "naturally selected" (ie. selected by nature).
Neo-Darwinists claim this process of natural selection accumulating
over billions of years has been the major factor in generating the
complex design of living things.
Those with an anti-creationist agenda (like Oxford zoologist Richard
Dawkins) claim that this `blind watchmaker' (an alusion to the
famous Divine Watchmaker of 18th century natural theologian William
Paley) can do all the work of creating and thus there is only
apparent design and therefore no Designer:
"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is
the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way.
A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs,
and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his
mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic
process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the
explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all
life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It
does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no
sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in
nature, it is the blind watchmaker." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", 1986, p5)
Even if Dawkins' argument was proved true, that "the blind forces of
physics" are all that is needed to generate molecular biologists
from molecules, it would not rule out God. Notice that Dawkins
whole argument depends on "the blind forces of physics, ALBEIT
DEPLOYED IN A VERY SPECIAL WAY" (emphasis mine). It would just push
the problem of design back one step into the fine-tuning of the laws
of physics and initial conditions that permitted and then supported
life.
Indeed Oxford Chrustian philosopher Richard Swinburne, sees
Dawkins-style evolution as an argument for the existence of God!
"The Argument from the Evolution of Animals and Men
The other phenomena which I have mentioned are also phenomena best
explained by postulating the existence and creative activity of God,
and so add to the cumulative case for His existence. Consider now
the evolution of animals and humans. In the middle of the last
century Darwin set out his impressive theory of evolution by natural
selection to account for the existence of animals and humans.
Animals varied in various ways from their parents (some were taller,
some shorter, some fatter, some thinner, some had beginnings of a
wing, others did not; and so on). Those animals with
characteristics which made them best fitted to survive, survived and
handed on their characteristics to the next generation. But,
although in general resembling their parents, their offspring varied
from them, and those variations which best fitted the animal to
survive were again the ones most likely to be handed on to another
generation. This process went on for millions of years producing
the whole range of animals which we have today, each adapted to
survive in a different environment. Among the characteristics
giving advantage in the struggle for survival was intelligence, and
the selections for this characteristic eventually led to the
evolution of man. Such is Darwin's account of why we have today
animals and men.
As far as it goes, his account is surely right. But there are two
crucial matters beyond its scope. First, the evolutionary mechanism
which Darwin describes only works because there are certain laws of
biochemistry (animals produce many offspring, these vary in various ways
from the parents, and so forth) and certain features of the environment
(there is a limited amount of food, drink, space, and so on). But why
are there these laws rather than other laws? Perhaps because they
follow from the most fundamental laws of physics. But the question then
arises as to why the fundamental laws of physics are such as to give
rise to laws of evolution. If we can answer this question we should do
so. There is again available the same simple answer-that there is a God
who makes matter behave in accord with such laws in order to produce a
world with animals and men. To develop my earlier point-God has an
obvious reason for producing men. He wants there to be creatures who
can share in His creative work by making choices which affect the world
they live in and the other creatures who live in that world. By the way
we treat our environment and our bodies, bring up our children and
influence our governments, we can make this world beautiful and its
other inhabitants happy and knowledgeable; or we can make it ugly and
its other inhabitants miserable and ignorant. A good God will seek
other beings with whom to share in his activity of creation, of forming,
moulding and changing the world. The fact of a mechanism to produce men
is evidence of God behind that mechanism."
(Swinburne R.G., "The Justification of Theism", Truth: An
International, Inter-Disciplinary Journal of Christian Thought,
Volume 3, 1991. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html)
The question then is not whether theism can be reconciled with even
the most extreme form of Neo-Darwinism, because it can. The real question
is whether Neo-Darwinism is *true* in the first place:
"When I discuss the subject of my book [Darwin on Trial] with people
who are followers of a theistic religion (usually Christians-they
might be Jewish), there's one problem I always run into. I'll have
to be very careful to make clear. I'll tend to sort of say, "I have
this question about whether the Darwinian version of evolution (the
theory of evolution that is currently accepted), is true. And then
they'll tend to say in response, "Well, we found a way to reconcile
it with belief in God", or "we found a way to reconcile it with the
Bible", or something like that". And what I always then have to say
is, "Wait a minute! That's not the first point", you see. "Before
worrying about whether one thing can be reconciled with another,
let's first look at the question of whether it's true. Whether we
need to worry about it at all". And my argument is, insofar as this
vast creative power is claimed, for mutation and selection, it's not
true. And so there's no need to worry about the conflict even
though many versions of evolution, certainly as the gentleman
suggests, can be reconciled with many forms of religious belief."
(Johnson P.E., "Phillip Johnson and Eugenie Scott", 2 tape set,
Wisconsin Public Radio, 1992)
Materialist-naturalists have really only got the `blind watchmaker',
so they will do their best to exaggerate its importance while
downplaying design. But a theist who believes that God is real, can
consider that God not only set up the laws of physics to permit and
support life, He may also have intervened at strategic points in
natural history too.
For me, in the final analysis, the only test is *the evidence*. I
must confess that I am attracted to Neo-Darwinism because of its
beguiling power and beauty (Johnson on one of his tapes virtually
admits this too), but the hard-headed sceptic in me wants to see the
*evidence* that natural selection mechanisms have all the creative
power needed to change hydrogen into humans!
And like Johnson, I am deeply suspicious of all the Darwinist tricks
that they play and the abuse and ridicule that they heap on
creationists, and even fellow evolutionists who don't toe the
party line with them. I would be much more impressed by transparent
honesty that openly admitted the problems and was generous to those
they disagreed with, including creationists.
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
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------