On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:09:29 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>Well first of all, there is nothing wrong with "FIGHTING evolution".
>If evolution is just a scientific theory, it is perfectly OK to criticise it.
>OTOH if it is an article of `religious' faith, then from that perspective it is
>inherently wrong, even wicked and evil, not to believe in evolution:>>
PM>Is it ? You are fighting a strawman again dear Stephen.
Another assertions without substantiation. But please keep it up. You are
doing a great job of proving my point that evolution "is an article of
`religious' faith" which it is "inherently wrong, even wicked and evil, not to
believe in" it.
Indeed, you are a prime example of an evolutionist who apparently cannot
bear to see evolution criticised and must assume that there is something
intellectually or even morally wrong with those doing the criticising. Hence
your automatic assumption that any arguments I make against evolution
must be "strawman" arguments.
Here is another quote re Dawkin's Darwinist "`religious' faith", this time
from a non-theist:
"When this book was first published, in 1992, it was greeted with a storm
of controversy no less passionate than the debate which met the publication
of Darwin's theory of evolution one hundred and thirty years ago. On one
hand, according to a leading article in The Times; Richard Milton's The
Facts of Life...could shake the "religion" of evolution as much as Honest to
God shook popular Christianity 30 years ago". While on the other
according to Darwinist Richard Dawkins, writing in the New Statesman,
the book is 'LOONY', 'STUPID', 'DRIVEL AND ITS AUTHOR A
'HARMLESS FRUIT- CAKE' WHO 'NEEDS PSYCHIATRIC HELP'.
...Dawkins, a reader in zoology at Oxford University, wrote his review for
the New Statesman 'lest the paper commission someone else who would
treat it as a serious scientific treatise' Dawkins devoted two thirds of his
review to attacking my hardback publishers, Fourth Estate, for their
irresponsibility in daring to accept a book critising Darwinism, and the
remainder to assassinating my character in the sort of terms quoted above.
Dawkins is employed at one of Britain's most distinguished universities and
is responsible for the education of future generations of students. Yet this
is not the language of a responsible scientist and teacher. IT IS THE
LANGUAGE OF A RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST WHOSE FAITH
HAS BEEN PROFANED." (Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the
Myth of Darwinism", 1993, preface. My emphasis.)
>SJ>"When he contemplates the perfidy of those who refuse to believe,
>Dawkins can scarcely restrain his fury. `It is absolutely safe to say that, if
>you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is
>ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).'"
>(Dawkins R., Review of Johanson D. & Edey M., "Blueprints," New
>York Times, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p9).
PM>Given the fact that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming
It all depends on how vaguely you define "evolution":
"Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory
wrong. ... Also, if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite,
then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the
expected consequences." --Richard Feynman, 1964"" (SCIENCE, Vol.
281, 14 August 1981, p903)
Indeed, if "evolution" is defined as "change over time" or "change in gene
frequencies in a population" then of course the evidence for "change over
time" and "change in gene frequencies in a population" *is*
"overwhelming".
But if "evolution" is defined more specifically (which it rarely is), as:
"The change in organisms over long periods of time is, of course, organic
evolution....all the millions of species of plants and animals have arisen
from a remote, single common ancestry BY A NATURAL PROCESS
acting through eons of time." (Simpson G.G., & Beck W.S., "Life: An
Introduction To Biology," [1957], Routledge & Kegan Paul: London,
Second Edition, 1965, p11. My emphasis.)
then the evidence is not "overwhelming" at all. For example, if some of the
major changes were not solely "by a natural process acting through eons of
time" but were brought about by a Creator's supernatural intervention, then
it would actually be Progressive or Mediate Creation not "evolution".
That *all* changes were *solely* by "a natural process" can be known only
as "an article of `religious' faith" the faith of a metaphysical or a theistic
naturalist.
PM>>Dawkins has a point.
So having asserted at the beginning that I was "fighting a strawman" when
I said that "If evolution is just a scientific theory, it is perfectly OK to
criticise it" but "if it is an article of `religious' faith, then from that
perspective it is inherently wrong, even wicked and evil, not to believe in"
it, you now confirm my argument when you say that "Dawkins has a point"
when he says that "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody
who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or
insane (or wicked...)"?
PM>Now if you meant mechanisms of evolution, then you have a point.
The point is that if the "mechanisms of evolution" are unknown, then it may
not *be* "evolution" - it could, for example, be Progressive Creation or
Mediate Creation.
Indeed, it is a *prediction* of Progressive/Mediate Creation that the
"mechanisms of evolution" would remain unknown, because the origin and
development of life was not a fully naturalistic process:
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation. The
amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical radiation is only
by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to several species by
horizontal radiation, through the process of the unraveling of gene
potentialities or recombination. Horizontal radiation could account for
much which now passes as evidence for the theory of evolution. The gaps
in the geological record are gaps because vertical progress takes place only
by creation...The chasms in the order of life can only be bridged by
creation." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture,"
[1955] Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, p191)
>SJ>Second, I said that "God COULD have worked through evolution"
>(ie. fully natural processes) not that God DID work through evolution.
>The evidence (when not viewed through naturalistic philosophical
>spectacles) does not support that position that God did (at least at all
>levels) work through known natural processes.
PM>Translation: When seen throught the right spectacles God did not
>work through known natural processes.
No. I said "when not viewed through *naturalistic philosophical*
spectacles" there is no evidence that "God did work through evolution."
PM>But why would God invent natural processes only to work through
>unnatural ones ?
I can think of at least two:
1. God wanted the universe to be able to support life without it being able
to originate and develop life beyond broad but definite limits. Otherwise
there would be multiple origins of life with the resultant totally conflicting
ecosystems which could prevent the emergence of man.
2. God did not want to give philosophical materialist-naturalists the excuse
of a fully materialistic-naturalistic history of life which they would use as an
argument against the existence of God:
"That passage [Romans Rom 1:18-23] does not speak of a nature that
merely raises questions that a naturalistic science cannot answer, but of a
nature that points directly and unmistakably toward the necessity of a
creator. And if nature does no more than raise questions, how can men be
blamed for coming to the wrong conclusions about what to worship? If
God stayed in that realm beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and
allowed an apparently blind materialistic evolutionary process to do all the
work of creation, then it would have to be said that God furnished us with
a world of excuses for unbelief and idolatry." (Johnson P.E., "Creator or
Blind Watchmaker?", First Things, January 1993, p12. Emphasis in
original.)
>SJ>Third, Glenn *still* misses the point. What Johnson (and I) am
>"fighting" is not "evolution" but the naturalistic *ways of thinking* that
>assumes apriori* that fully naturalistic "evolution" is the only option:
PM>It is the only scientific option.
Thanks for again confirming my point:
"Is the blind watchmaker hypothesis *true*? From the naturalistic
standpoint of Darwinists like Dawkins, the question really doesn't arise.
Instead of truth, the important concept is *science*, which is understood to
be our only (or at least by far our most reliable) means of attaining
knowledge. Science is then defined as an activity in which only naturalistic
explanations are considered and in which the goal is always to improve the
best existing naturalistic explanation. Supernatural creation-or God-guided
evolution-is not a naturalistic explanation. The blind watchmaker
hypothesis is therefore merely a way of stating the commitment of
"science" to naturalism, and as such the existence of a blind watchmaker is
a logical necessity. If a critic doesn't like Darwinism, his only permissible
move is to suggest a better blind watchmaker. That a competent blind
watchmaker doesn't exist at all is not a logical possibility." (Johnson P.E.,
"Creator or Blind Watchmaker?", First Things, January 1993, p13.
Emphasis in original.)
PM>Now if you want to believe in supernatural causes then you should
>also allow the Tooth Fairy theory of evolution? Heck, only imagination
>is the limit then. Given the many stories of creation on this world, I bet
>you that the earth and its surroundings were created at least a hundred
>times.
And this too. From this I presume you must agree with Dawkins that the
Biblical creation story is just one of "the many stories of creation on this
world", on a par with that of " the belief of a particular West African tribe
that the world was created from the excrement of ants":
"Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the
Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one
particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status
than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created
from the excrement of ants. All these myths have in common that they
depend upon the deliberate intentions of some kind of supernatural being."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991,
reprint, p316).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------