This is a big post, so if you reply, I would appreciate it if you would also edit out
extraneous material, and insert initials (eg. "SJ>" and "DM>" to make it clear
who said what. Thanks.
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:10:22 +1000, Derek McLarnen wrote:
[...]
DM>(continued)
[...]
>SJ> No. Gould gives lip-service only to "Neo-Darwinian mechanisms". He
>>studied at Columbia under Dobzhansky, the co-founder of the Modern
>>Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, yet he wrote 20 years later as a Professor
>>at Harvard that the Neo-Darwinism he learned as a student was
>>"effectively dead":
>>"...>I have been reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often
>>forever-but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is
>>accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively
>>dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.' (Gould S.J.,
>>"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology,
>>vol. 6(1), January 1980, p120)
DM>I wonder if this was written when Mayr was describing Gould and Eldredge
>as saltationists, and PE as saltationism.
The point was that Gould lost his faith in the synthetic theory (ie.
classical Neo-Darwinism), well before he proposed his punctuated
equilibria theory.
DM>You might also note that, 18 years later, neo-Darwinian evolution is
>anything but "dead". But PE, as a theory incompatible with neo-Darwinian
>processes, is "terminal".
Gould didn't say it was "dead"-he said it was: 1. "as a general
proposition" 2. "effectively dead"! AFAIK Gould has never retracted
his claim and therefore it must stand as his continued belief. That is,
Gould believes today "18 years later" that Neo-Darwinism is *still*
"as a *general* proposition" "*effectively* dead, despite its
persistence as textbook orthodoxy".
>SJ> The only reason Gould stays just within the pale of Neo-Darwinism
>>is not that he believes wholeheartedly in it, but that his "new and
>>general theory of evolution" never emerged:
DM>It never needed to emerge. Neo-Darwinian theory has not been found
>wanting.
It clearly has by those, like Gould and Eldredge who have proposed
Punctuated Equilibria as an alternative. If Neo-Darwinism was OK,
why invent a new name?
>SJ>"Gould's uncomfortable situation reminds me of the self-created
>>predicament of Mikhail Gorbachev in the last years of the Soviet
>>Empire. Gorbachev recognized that something had gone wrong with the
>>Communist system, but thought that the system itself could be
>>preserved if it was reformed.
DM>Diversion..
Ignored!
>SJ>His democratic friends warned him
>>that the Marxist fundamentalists would inevitably turn against him,
>>but he was unwilling to endanger his position in the ruling elite by
>>following his own logic to its necessary conclusion.
DM>Arguably, if Gorbachev had gone the whole way, he would have been
>ousted before he had succeeded...
Agreed. That is Gould's problem. He knows Neo-Darwinism doesn't fit
the evidence, but if he had "gone the whole way" and made a clean break
with it "he would have been ousted".
>SJ> Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost
>to a closed society of dogmatists.
DM>I agree.
I'm glad to see we both "agree" that Neo-Darwinism is "a closed society
of dogmatists"!
DM>It has enhanced evolutionary theory immensely to have had
>paleontological observations and PE concepts such as stasis and
>habitat-tracking forced on it.
We were talking about *Neo-Darwinism* not something vague and
undefined like "evolutionary theory". If you are saying that
Neo-Darwnism had to have "paleontological observations...such
as stasis" "forced on it" then that does not say much for Neo-
Darwinism or for the scientific attitude of it practitioners.
>SJ>And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad
>>reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean
>>break with a dying theory." (Johnson P.E., "The Gorbachev of
>>Darwinism", First Things 79, January 1998, pp14-16.
>>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html)
DM>This sets a new record for how much garbage can be contained in one
>sentence. The only accurate part is "he lives on".
If Gould still believes that Neo-Darwinism is "effectively dead"
(and he has never retracted it), yet does not make a clean break from
it for fear of the consequences, then what Johnson says is true as
at least far as Gould is concerned.
DM>My quotes of Eldredge and Dawkins in the previous message show this
>claim up as nonsense. It could be argued that Johnson, along with
>millions of others, "lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those
>who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying" religion.
Johnson *did* "make a clean break with a dying religion" - he was once
an atheist/agnostic like you!
[...]
>>DM>Nice try, but an even more obvious answer is that it was/is
>>>naturalistic processes, but not only evolution.
>SJ> So now "evolution" is not even enough. We must have additional
>>"naturalistic processes" that are not even "evolution"!
DM>Neo-Darwinian evolutionary processes are sufficient to explain
>evolution. However, the history of life includes a great deal of
>phenomena that are not evolutionary. Why should evolutionary theory be
>sufficient to explain those phenomena?
What is your defintion of "evolution" in the above semi-tautological
statement that "Neo-Darwinian evolutionary processes are sufficient
to explain evolution"?
And if "the history of life includes a great deal of phenomena that
are not evolutionary" then if "evolutionary theory" is not "sufficient
to explain those phenomena", then what general theory is?
Indeed, why should a higher, more inclusive model (ie. Mediate Creation
and theism), be rejected out of hand when it can explain *all* the
"phenomena" both "evolutionary" and "not evolutionary":
"Why believe that there is a God at all? My answer is that to suppose
that there is a God explains why there is a world at all; why there are
the scientific laws there are; why animals and then human beings have
evolved; why humans have the opportunity to mould their characters
and those of their fellow humans for good or ill and to change the
environment in which we live; why we have the well-authenticated
account of Christ's life, death and resurrection; why throughout the
centuries men have had the apparent experience of being in touch
with and guided by God; and so much else. In fact, the hypothesis of
the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience, and
it does so better than any other explanation which can be put
forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true.
(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)
>SJ>I am reminded
>>of Darwin's recantation in the Descent of Man of his earlier wrong
>>belief in the power of natural selection, and his proposing to fill
>>the void with a mysterious new mechanism which acted "uniformly and
>>energetically during a lengthened period" to produce "structures,
>>which...are neither beneficial nor injurious":..(Darwin C., "The
Descent of Man", 1871, Modern Library, pp441-442)
>>
>>Of which Himmelfarb comments:
>>
>>"Even more interesting, however, than the confession itself was what
>>followed it: the admission of a new factor in the variation of
>>species, more momentous in its implications for his theory than even sexual
>>selection...Falling under none of the other categories that he
>>recognized as responsible for evolution-natural selection, sexual
>>selection, the direct action of the environment, the effect of use and
>>disuse, and correlation of structure- the variation induced by this
>>new factor was of no service to the organism, either in its inception or
>>in its later development. And the nature of its cause was unknown...
Darwin had come far indeed from the doctrine of natural selection."
>>(Himmelfarb G., "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution," 1996, pp368-369)
DM>To what, in all of this, am I meant to respond - the fact that Darwin
>developed and revised his ideas between the publications of "Origin" and
>"Descent" - or something else?
So you think that "a mysterious new mechanism which acted `uniformly and
energetically during a lengthened period' to produce `structures,
which...are neither beneficial nor injurious'" (Darwin C., "The
Descent of Man", 1871, Modern Library, pp441-442) is a development
and a revision? What exactly was it then?
>>DM>If the proponents of Intelligent Design want to be heard, then
>>>they need to have something interesting to say. As near as I can
>>>tell, the defining statements of Intelligent Design's position are
>>>something like....
>SJ> Derek, I own and have read dozens of evolution books. How many
>>Intelligent Design books do you own, or at least have read?
DM>I own, and have read, "Science and the Bible" by Henry Morris and "The
>Christian View of Science and Scripture" by Bernard Ramm. I have also
>read every Johnson and Behe quote you have sent me, and many others that
>have appeared on the Reflector. And I have read your own arguments for
>ID.
Well, I hardly think that two books written in 1955 and 1956 would qualify
as being up to date with what "the proponents of Intelligent Design" are
saying.
And while I am flattered that you take notice of my quotes, I hardly think
they are a substitute for reading ID theorist's works themselves.
BTW, in view of your criticisms of Henry Morris over the years, I am
amazed you have read *one* of his books!
>SJ> If you want to state the case for Intelligent Design, how about some quotes
>>from ID literature that you have read?
DM>I don't want to state the case *for* intelligent design; I want to state
>the case *against* intelligent design.
How can you "state the case *against* intelligent design" if you don't
know what it is? And how can you know what it is, if you haven't read
any modern "ID literature"?
What would you think of an ID theorist who criticised evolution but
had only ever read *two* evolution books and 40-year old ones at that?
>SJ> After all, I could just as easy characterise your position as "God"
>>has *not* "directly intervened in natural evolutionary processes,
>>because such a belief fits with our" *anti-*"theology"!
DM>That's certainly some of it! However, you have not included the
>important point that my position is heavily influenced by my
>understanding that no one has discovered *any* specific direct
>interventions by God in the evolutionary process
Firstly, you are begging the question: you assume that it *was* an
"evolutionary process". Secondly, no one has discovered any actual
evolutionary events in "the evolutionary process" either: they are
just *assumed* on the basis of materialistic naturalistic philosophy.
Thirdly, "direct interventions by God" fits the evidence better than
any fully naturalistic process advanced to date.
DM>and that many devout theists and biologists do not see any
>theological or biological requirement for such interventions.
This proves nothing. Most theists know very little about evolution
and its problems and just assume it is true and therefore God's way
of creation, like I did for 20 years. And most biologists are scientific
materialists who don't believe there is a God who could make "such
interventions."
And in any event, I don't claim that there is a "theological or
biological requirement for such interventions", but that it fits
the evidence as a whole better.
>SJ> As for not knowing "where God specifically intervened", ID has for
>>example put forward specific examples of what appears to be
>>irreducible complexity, that naturalistic theories have been unable
>>to explain, such as the blood-clotting cascade:
>>"Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects
>>of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron
>>transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis,
>>transcription regulation, and much more...No papers are to be found that
>>discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of
>>complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National
>>Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology
>>or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever." (Behe M.J.,
>>"Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design
>>Inference", C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University, Summer1994.
>>http://www.arn.org/arn/articles/behe924.htm)
DM>Isn't this an "Absense of knowledge is knowledge of absense" argument.
>In other words, just because no one has yet reduced the complexity of a
>particular biological process, it is deemed to be, by default,
>irreducible.
No. Even ID theorists would grant that "It is by by default" reducible
complexity. But if these things resist all attempts to explain how they
arose in a stepwise fashion, then it is reasonable to assume they are
"irreducible" complexity.
DM>This is not right. Since there are many *known* reducible
>biological processes, and not a single *known* irreducible biological
>process, then the default assumption should be "reducible", not
>"irreducible".
See above. ID theorists would grant that the default position is
"reducible" complexity. But logically there are three possibilities:
1) reducible complexity; 2) either reducible or irreducible complexity;
and 3) irreducible complexity.
If something complex can be demonstrated plausibly and in detail to
be formed by known natural processes in a stepwise fashion, then it
would be accepted as: 1) reducible complexity. If something complex
cannot be demonstrated to have been formed in a stepwise fashion then
but there are plausible, detailed accounts in the scientific literature
of how it might have arisen naturalistically, then it is reasonable to
assume it is either 1) or 2), although it could be 3. But if something
complex resists all attempts to explain it (even in thought experiments)
then it is reasonable to assume it is 3).
DM>The *appearance* of irreducible complexity is not the same as the
>*actuality* of irreducible complexity. It seems to me that "irreducible
>complexity" is a mathematical/logical concept and that the *actual*
>existence of an example should be provable, at least to a high degree of
>reliability.
How else could "irreducible complexity" be proved except by the fact
that no one can show plausibly and in detail how it arose in a stepwise
fashion?
DM>I suppose I should be grateful that, as least as far as individual
>claims of irreducable complexity are concerned, ID is falsifiable.
Thanks. But is your claim of *reducible* complexity "falsifiable"? How?
>SJ> As for "not knowing what processes were used", the point is that God
>>does not need to use *any* processes, but can act directly on
>>matter. For example, God could directly cause a series of genetic
>>mutations over time or instantaneously, to modify the genetic code
>>to produce a new feature that unaided nature could not plausibly
>>produce.
DM>No argument. But if no discoverable processes are involved, what
>is the scientific point of the ID hypothesis? Have you just admitted
>that ID is a 100% theological hypothesis?
The "scientific point of the ID hypothesis" is that it fits *all the
facts* better than the non-ID hypothesis. Also, I do not agree that it
is "100% theological" since it attempts to account for all the evidence
and can be falsified by that evidence. In any event, it is irrelevant
that it is "theological". Moreland points out that:
"...This criticism is frequently encountered in popular discussions of
creation and evolution (e.g., the editorial pages of newspapers).
Unfortunately, it is an example of the genetic fallacy, the mistake of
confusing the origin of a claim with its evidential warrant and
undermining the claim by calling attention to its origin. What is
relevant to the rationality of a claim is the evidence for it, not its
source. The medieval practice of alchemy was the historical source of
modern chemistry, but that is hardly a good objection to the
rationality of chemical theory. F. A. Kekule formulated his idea of the
benzene ring by having a trancelike dream of a snake chasing its own
tail in a circle. But the origin of his idea was not what mattered; what
mattered was the evidential support he could muster for it. It makes
no difference whether a scientific theory comes from a dream, the
Bible, or bathroom graffiti. The issue is whether independent
scientific reasons are given for it.." (Moreland J.P., "Christianity
and the Nature of Science", 1989, p229)
[...]
>SJ> It is true that ID cannot predict exactly where or how God
>>intervenes, but macroevolution theory is no better. It cannot
>>predict in advance where evolution is going to work its alleged
>>wonders either.
DM>I don't agree with this. And not just because I see no evidence for
>macro-evolution as something intrinsically different from sequential
>micro-evolution episodes. Evolutionary theory does describe, with
>observation and models based on mathematical equations, the conditions
>under which evolution occurs.
Please give some examples with references of how such "models based on
mathematical equations" can "predict in advance where evolution is going
to work"? What macroevolutionary events do these models predict for the
future? How can they be tested?
>SJ> But ID would expect that if God has intervened it would be at
>>strategic points in the history of life, and/or where known
>>naturalistic processes seem to be inadequate: '...but only when good
>>theological or philosophical reasons are present, such as..would
>>cause us to expect a discontinuity in nature where God acted via primary
>>causation (e.g., the origin of the universe, first life, basic
>>"kinds" of life)." (Moreland J.P., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994,
>>pp59-60).
DM>Make up your mind! Are we talking about "where known naturalistic
>processes seem to be inadequate", i.e. where science needs more work, or
>are we talking about "when good theological or philosophical reasons are
>present"? In other words, is ID primarily about higher quality
>scientific enquiry or is it about apologetics, i.e. making Christianity
>more believable?
Any or all of these three: 1. ID would expect that God has intervened at
"strategic points in the history of life" because that is where the most
significant and far-reaching changes are-ID would not expect God to
intervene where changes are insignificant and have to be repeated many
times. BTW this is my one argument-I have not seen it in ID works AFAIK.
2. ID would also expect that God has intervened "when good theological
or philosophical reasons are present". For example, Genesis 1 gives
good theological reasons to expect that God progressively intervened
in the major stages of the history of life: "The first chapter of Genesis
describes the successive waves of Creation..." (Dennett D.C., "Darwin's
Dangerous Idea", 1995, p67).
3. ID would also expect that God has intervened "where known naturalistic
processes seem to be inadequate". These may be areas that are not
obviously strategic and there is no obvious theological/philosophical
reason to expect God's intervention, but nevertheless no plausible,
detailed naturalistic origin scenario can be found or even suggested.
This includes irreducibly complex things like the blood-clotting
cascade.
[...]
>SJ> I've got news for you Derek. The "scientific community" *is*
>>"taking" ID very "seriously" indeed.
DM>So they should. It provides a very strong impetus to scientifically
>research the processes that Behe claims may be irreducably complex. I
>expect that our knowledge of these processes will increase dramatically
>as a result of this research. Is your expectation that our knowledge of
>these processes will not increase dramatically since they are
>"irreducably complex"?
Yes of course.
>SJ>Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" was instantly reviewed/attacked by leading
>>scientific journals, rather than the year it took for them to review
>>Johnson's Darwin on Trial.
DM>So, how do you respond to Behe's critics' claim that "Darwin's Black
>Box" is little more than the "argument from design" rehashed at
>molecular level
It's not a "claim". If you read Behe's book you would know that it
*is* an argument from design! Behe has quite a good section on Paley,
for example.
DM>and an argument from personal incredulity?
No. Behe does not claim that he *cannot believe* that the blood-clotting
cascade arose in a step-by-step fashion, but that after decades of
trying by some of the best minds in molecular biology, science *cannot
explain* (or even suggest) how it arose.
DM>Some references that I expect you have already read.
>
>http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html
>
>http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/br21.6/orr.html
>
>http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/evolution/irred_compl.html
Thanks. I have read the last two.
DM>This last reference is Terry Gray's response to Behe. I would be
>particularly interested in your response to his Item 4 - Premature
>appeal to special divine activity to explain the world around us damages
>the Christian theistic apologetic.
It is simply begging the question that it is "premature". Science
has been trying for *decades* to explain these things and hasn't
succeeded. It is reasonable to conclude that they will never succeed
because there is no naturalistic explanation.
And why should go around in fear of using their best arguments lest
they be falsified? If their arguments are false, then that is
part and parcel of having a falsifiable position. But if their
arguments are true, and these things are in fact irredicubly complex
then theists would have been "Finlandised" into never using their
best arguments.
Your concern for "the Christian theistic apologetic" is touching, since
you are a devout atheist/agnostic who thinks that Jesus was an impostor!
I would have thought you should "egg on" theists to stick their neck
out so it can be chopped off! That you use this argument suggests to me
that you are worried deep down that it might be true?
>SJ> Behe's book was the first anti-evolution book published by a major
>>secular publisher (Free Press) in 40 years.
>DM>From the excerpts I've seen of it and other anti-evolution works, it
>appears to be the only one that examines scientifically discoverable
>processes.
Yes. But there are more in the pipeline!
>SJ> I correspond privately with leading ID theorists who visit secular
>>universities and they report very encouraging interest shown by
>>professors (including Biology) and even Deans.
DM>Excellent. The wider the interest, the better. As I said above, it has
>the potential to provoke serious detailed research in areas where our
>knowledge is badly lacking.
Good.
>SJ>As for ID's own investigations, this is a furphy. Science is
>>supposed to be public knowledge largely paid for by public taxes,
>>and ID theorists are quite entitled to use existing scientific
>>findings to support their case.
DM>No argument. To their credit, it appears that ID theorists are using
>real scientific findings as a basis for their argument. If nothing else
>useful comes out of ID, at least it shows up how much better (or maybe
>non-existent) YEC could be if it was prepared to embrace intellectual
>honesty.
I don't disagree, although I don't think that YEC's are dishonest (Dr
Carl Baugh may be an exception!)
>SJ> There is some original investigations going on, but at this early
>>stage it is quite properly laying the theoretical groundwork, so it
>>largely philosophical.
DM>Notice how different this is to Darwin's approach, where the examination
>and documentation of volumes of observations *preceded* his "laying the
>theoretical groundwork".
No. Despite Darwin's autobiographical claims that he started with an
open (or even a Christian) mind, and arrived at evolution from his
observations, his private notebooks reveal that this was not true:
"Darwin should have felt even more ashamed for having spoken in his
Autobiography of his imperceptibly slow "evolution" from belief into
mere agnosticism. As one who through much of his adult life had to
dissimulate his true views lest a deeply religious and beloved wife be
hurt, Darwin finally came to believe that he was not dissimulating
anything. He might have been cured of his illusion about the evolution
of his religious beliefs had he reread in his late years his early
Notebooks. Available since the early 1970s in easily accessible
edition, those Notebooks make it absolutely clear that the Darwin of
the late 1830s was a crude and crusading materialist. There was no
gradual evolution from the official naturalist of the Beagle who, as
behove a good fundamentalist, had lectured shipmates with Bible in
hand on the evil of swearing, to the author of those Notebooks. The
transition was rather rapid, indicating a sudden and thorough
disillusion which turns one's erstwhile object of love into a target of
hatred to be exposed and destroyed by all possible means." (Jaki S.L.,
"The Absolute beneath the Relative", 1988, pp190-191)
>SJ> If you want to underestimate ID and dismiss and ignore it, that's
>>just great!!
DM>Not at all! I expect that, while ID itself will lose credibility as more
>and more of its claimed irreducably complex processes are shown to be
>reducible, the research involved in showing these processes to be
>reducible will generate enormously valuable knowledge.
Good.
[...]
>SJ> See above re underestimating ID. And you also show similar ignorance
>>of Christianity. While Christianity has been declining in the West
>>(even that's debatable if one discounts nominal Christians), it has
>>been growing in leaps and bounds in the Third World.
DM>This is why I expect that the decline will occur last in the Third
>World. Perhaps I should also clarify that, while the decline of
>Christianity in the West will be a migration into New Age beliefs,
>agnosticism and atheism, the decline in the East will be a migration
>into Buddhism, Islam, agnosticm and atheism, and the decline in Africa
>will mostly be a migration to Islam.
As I said below, the Bible indicates that Christianity will eventually
decline, but your original claim was that it was declining right now,
which is false.
>SJ> In any event, the eventual decline of Christianity was a prediction
>>of Christ as a sign of His imminent return: Luke 18:8 ..; Mat 24:12;
2 Thess 2:3 ..."
DM>It is consistent with my understanding of the Biblical God's sense of
>justice and mercy, that He would not want to end the world when it
>contained the maximum number of Christians and, consequently the highest
>proportion of dead and living people acceptable for Heaven.
It would make no difference whether the Christians were living at the
time of Christ's return or had died. They would still all be "acceptable
for heaven".
>>>SJ>But I do not necessarily predict that ID will become dominant
>>>>or even more popular than materialistic-naturalism.
[...]
>>Again you show your lack of knowledge of ID! Johnson has claimed
>>that his ID movement is *already* more popular than
>>creation-science.
DM>When the ICR admits the accuracy of Johnson's claim, I'll believe it!
Indirectly, maybe they already are. See the Neo-Creationism Impact below.
DM>Alternatively, I'd need to see the results of some reliable polls. In
>conjunction with the poll results, I'd need to see how a person was
>defined as a proponent of YEC, ID or MN.
Sounds like you are protecting yourself quite nicely from ever having to
admit that ID is more popular than YEC! I doubt that there would ever be
a poll that would distinguish between ID and YEC, because most YECs would
also accept ID. But well before Johnson's recent ID movement, polls show
that the number of people who believe in God-guided evolution (ie. OEC's,
TE's and PC's) was 38% as opposed to the 44% of YEC's:
"According to a 1982 Gallup poll aimed at measuring nationwide
opinion, 44 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that
"God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within
the last 10,000 years."...Another 38 percent accepted evolution as a
process guided by God. Only 9 percent identified themselves as believers
in a naturalistic evolutionary process not guided by God." (Johnson P.E.
"Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", 1990, p10)
The problem with this question is that there are Old-Earth/Young-Adam
PCs who believe that the world is old but man is young. Also, the word
"evolution" might put some PCs off. I suspect that if the poll is run
again, with the questions a bit clearer, eg:
"Which is closest to what you believe: 1. the world and all its living
things were created by God within the last 50,000 years? or 2. the world
is millions of years old but it, and all its living things, were formed
by processes guided by God? or 3. God had no part in the formation of
the world and its living things?
then it would more clearly separate the YECs from the OEC'. I would
then expect that the number of OEC's would be greater than the YEC's.
>SJ>When I was in the USA I stayed with a very strong
>>YEC-fundamentalist lady, who had heard that I was an evolutionist!
DM>To a YEC-fundamentalist, you *are* an evolutionist (or is that
>(evilutionist)! :-)
Yes. Both the YECs and the evolutionists have fostered the false notion
that if one is not a YEC, then one is an evolutionists!
>SJ> I explained to her about Phil Johnson and gave her a copy of his
>>"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", and she became very
>>interested.
DM>I hope she sees it for the vast improvement over YEC literature that it
>surely must be.
But remember Derek, you have only ever read *one* book of "YEC
literature"!
>SJ>IMHO creation-science has been strong in the past
>>because it's the only option for creationists.
DD>You appear to have a blind spot here. There is no reason why
>creationists couldn't, as Glenn Morton has done, renounce their
>creationism.
Of course they can and do. But my point was that "creation-science"
has beem "the only option for creationists" *who want to stay
creationists*, ie. not become evolutionists.
>SJ>Now a more attractive creationist alternative is available, large
>>numbers of creationists (as well as many theistic evolutionists)
>>will switch allegiance to the ID movement.
DM>There's no denying ID is more attractive than YEC; the only religious
>practices less attractive than YEC involve death or torture.
I am glad to see you admit there is something "less attractive than
YEC"! :-)
DM>I also consider that the world would be a safer place if ID proponents
>took over the political power currently held by YEC's in the USA.
OK. But I think you overestimate YECs "political power". They have
been beaten at every turn in the USA.
>SJ> A good indicator is that the ICR is now sensing that Johnson is a
>>threat to their patch, and starting to criticise him obliquely. See
>>Henry Morris' article: "Neocreationism", Impact No. 296, Institute
>>for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, February 1998
>>http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-296.htm)
DM>I wonder what represents the biggest threat - the "money drain" as the
>"sheep" defect, the "brain drain" as the "shepherds" defect, or the
>"power drain" as the politicians defect. ;-)
I think the first thing they have noticed is that they are being
ignored and Johnson is now being attacked by evolutionists (theistic
and non-theistic).
>>>SJ>Disagree. Dawkins is absolutely right. There is *no* other
>>>>naturalistic alternative to the `blind watchmaker'. Even Gould
>>>>admits this: "...I know of no scientific mechanism other than
>>>>natural selection with the proven power to build structures of
>>>>such eminently workable design." (Gould S.J., "Darwinian
>>>>Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
>>>>http://www.nyb oks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F >>@p3)
>SJ>Does no comment signify agreement? ;-)
DM>In this case, yes. Provisionally, of course!
Good!
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------