On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:55:19 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
BH>Steve Jones wrote
>SJ>My point was not that YECs don't raise the objection that "that
>>historical events are nonrepeatible" and "not subject to
>>experimentation", but that they are just taking up and using a prior
>>Darwinist claim to that effect.
BH>Thanks for the Gish quote that shows this. I have seen the Dobzhansky
>quote before, but somehow it had never occurred to me that the creationist
>cavils about the inability to conduct repeatible experiments with
>historical data were simply a response to what the evolutionists admit.
Yes. Gould also has written a lot about this.
BH>However, I do believe there is a legitimate issue here: the response to the
>difficulty. The response of evolutionists has been to look for means other
>than observing the entire history of evolutionary development to study
>evolution. Some of the means are paleontology, population genetics and
>field studies of observable variations.
But by ruling out any form of creation apriori, they beg the question that
it *was* "evolution". The "observable variations" they see in "field studies"
do not yield anything like the evidence that nature was able to do all
its own creating. What the evidence reveals is that all known naturalistic
processes are inadequate to account for all the evidence of change over
time in the history of life. Hence supernatural guidance/intervention by
an Intelligent Designer must have been a factor. How much a factor is a
legitimate area of scientific investigation.
BH>The young-earth creationist response has been to say, "No, none of that is
>valid." While the evolutionists may be mistaken in some -- perhaps many or
>even most -- of their conclusions, I think their approach is more likely to
>advance the state of human empirical knowledge.
Granted that YECs with their Biblical straightjacket approach are not "likely
to advance the state of human empirical knowledge". But that does not automatically
mean that the "evolutionists" will do any better after a point. If there really
is a God, who guided/intervened in natural history, then one would expect that
the "evolutionists" will run into a series of brick walls as they come up hard
against the intractable problems that the reality of supernatural creation sets
for them, who deny it apriori. And this is exactly what we are seeing in all areas
involving origins.
BH>Moreover I don't see any threat to Christianity in the evolutionist
>approach. It means Christians have to be vigilant to point out when
>conclusions that aren't scientifically supportable are masqueraded as fact,
>but if Christians are unwilling to do that, we will have many problems
>before the Lord returns. (Many more than necessary, anyway)
This is good as a starter, but why should not "Christianity" develop its
own theistic view of science, eg. Intelligent Design, etc, rather than
passively sit by and let the atheists exclude theistic viewpoints from all
areas of public life?
>SJ>Not all Darwinists would agree with you that "Darwinism...isn't
>>science" but "a philosophical position".
BH>I'm sure they wouldn't. I was being a bit careless in my definitions,
>although I did try to qualify things by saying "Darwinism as _you_ define it"
What is so special about the way I define it? I use quotes from the
Darwinists themselves to define "Darwinism":
"...I'm a Darwinian...All this apparent design has come about without
a designer. No purpose, no goals, no blueprints. Natural selection is
simply about genes replicating themselves down the generations.
Genes that build bodies that do what's needed-seeing, running,
digesting, mating-get replicated; and those that don't, don't. All the
more wondrous, then, to discover what natural selection has achieved
with human nature." (Cronin H., "The Evolution of Evolution",
TIME, Summer 1997/98, p80)
>SJ>But in any event, I was using "Darwinism" the way Popper does, as
>>short for the Neo-Darwinist general theory of macroevolution, which is
>>after all, what we were discussing.
BH>I'd better read what Popper said -- before and after -- before I comment.
>Long ago on talk.origins I said that I thought macroevolution was a
>reasonable inference from the fossil record and population genetics. A
>reasonable inference is different from a fact, of course, and I do think
>those who assert that it's a fact are crossing the line from science to
>metaphysical research program.
I don't deny that "macroevolution was a reasonable inference". In fact
if there is no God, it is virtually true by definition, without even
needing any evidence. But if there is a God who is able to guide and
intervene in life's history, then some form of progressive creative
development by that God is an even more "reasonable inference".
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------