>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.
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.>>
You are trying to create a strawman. That your faith requires you to resort to such arguments is not my problem.
Stephen: <<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.>>
Not at all. I love to hear some intellectual criticism of evolution. Science thrives on criticism.
>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
Stephen: <<It all depends on how vaguely you define "evolution":>>
Why not stick to the common definition.
Stephen: <<"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)>>
Wow, Richard must be talking about scientific creationism here. <g>
Stephen: <<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".>>
Wow, we agree.
Stephen :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.)>>
Now you are talking about the mechanisms of evolution. It appears you are confused by the differences between the fact of evolution, which you agree is overwhelming, and the mechanisms of evolution.
Stephen: <<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".>>
Of course that would immediately place evolution outside the realm of observation, predictability and scientific inquiry. So it appears that it is you who is trying to turn evolution into a faith issue.
Stephen: <<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.>>
On the contrary, no faith is required. Unless you are saying that is by faith that we stand with our two feet on this earth, rather than floating around in space ?
PM>Now if you meant mechanisms of evolution, then you have a point.
Stephen: <<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.>>
We are talking about the evidence of evolution. Progressive creation or mediate creation are merely mechanisms. Fairly unsatisfactory mechanisms but they could still qualify as such.
Stephen: <<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:>>
Too bad then that this prediction appears to be falsified. No problem though, creation is an issue of faith, not science anyway.
Stephen: <<No. I said "when not viewed through *naturalistic philosophical*
spectacles" there is no evidence that "God did work through evolution.">>
So you claim. But we surely disagree here as the evidence is overwhelming that God used evolution.
PM>But why would God invent natural processes only to work through
>unnatural ones ?
StepehN: 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.>>
Would it not be a disaster to find alternate life forms then ? But why would God want to place limits and keep these limits well hidden from science and observation ?
Stephen:
<<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:>>
Pretty poor argument. If God wanted to prevent this then he surely could have done a better job. Presently by dragging God into the realm of science, creationists have allowed God to be falsified by scientific methods.
>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.
StepheN <<Thanks for again confirming my point:>>
It's a pretty obvious one. If you want to discuss faith, fine. But that would be outside the realm of science.
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.
Stephen: <<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":>>
Isn't it ? At least on a scientific level ? Now on a level of faith this might be quite different.