On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:11:13 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
JR>As one who's really open to God having done things via natural means
or not
I am not aware of you ever seriously considering whether "God" had "done
things via" any other means but "natural". Could you please give examples?
JR>I must confess dismay at the chronically low quality of the anti-
>evolutionary arguments presented here. I guess I'm echoing what Howard
>said here, for reasons complementary to those he expressed.
Of course there are "low quality...anti-evolutionary arguments". But there
are also "low quality" *evolutionary* "arguments." But you rarely if ever
complain about them. From where I sit your *real* objection seems to be
to "anti-evolutionary arguments" per se.
JR>There are some significant arguments to be made, in my view, along the
>lines of evolutionary theory being the best scientific theory by far but NOT
>therefore being either precisely and exhaustively true nor even being
>demonstrably -likely- to be precisely and exhaustively true (perhaps it's
>akin to Newtonian physics, e.g., and in any event ET's insight is limited to
>the scientifically accessible aspects of the physical world, contra >Dawkins).
Until the criteria for "scientific" is decoupled from materialism and
naturalism, "evolutionary theory" is *by definition* "the best scientific"
theory" since it is the *only* "scientific theory."
For instance, Darwinists routinely claim that "evolution is a fact":
"evolution is a fact, not a theory," (Sagan C., "Cosmos", 1980, p27) and
Ruse, that "Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" (his emphasis). (Ruse M.,
"Darwinism Defended", 1982, p58). Asimov writes that" the evidence in
favor of evolution is so strong that no reputable biologist doubts the fact .,"
(Asimov I., "In the Beginning", 1981, p40)" (Bird W. R., "The Origin of
Species Revisited", Regency: Nashville,
1991, Vol. II, pp128-129).
If "evolution is a fact", how can there even *be* any other "scientific
theory" but evolution?
Indeed Sir Julian Huxley, co-founder of Neo-Darwinism said that:
"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms
from the sphere of rational discussion." (Huxley S., in Hitching F., "The
Neck of the Giraffe," 1982, p254).
JR>As a corollary, one could further argue that we should in principal be
>prepared to accept things like ID theory -should they ever prove
>empirically/scientifically superior- to evolutionary theory (which they
>certainly don't -right now-).
By this `Freudian slip' you admit you are *not* even "in principle prepared
to accept things like ID theory". So how *could* "ID theory...ever prove
empirically/scientifically superior- to evolutionary theory" while your are
not even "in principle prepared to accept" it?
JR>But instead, from nearly all anti-evolutionary comers, we get some
>higher or lower degree of rhetorical sophistication combined with
>scientific and logical dross, pretty much always in the directions of
>grotesque caricature, gross exaggeration, or just sloppy confusion.
Since by your own admission you are not even "in principle prepared to
accept things like ID theory", then to you all "anti-evolutionary" arguments
*must* fall into the categories of "higher or lower" degrees "of rhetorical
sophistication"!
Your bias is evident in that you don't even distinguish between what
Ratzch calls the "upper and lower tier" of "the creationist movement":
"But there is barely beginning to emerge a new generation of creationists
with legitimate and relevant credentials who are undertaking to actually do
some of the painstaking, detailed drudgery that underlies any genuinely live
scientific program. This emergence has begun to produce a separation in
the creationist movement-an upper and lower tier, so to speak. I think that
what ultimately separates the two tiers is different levels of respect for
accuracy and completeness of detail, and different levels of awareness that
a theory's looking good in vague and general form is an enormously
unreliable predictor of whether in the long run the theory will be
disemboweled by recalcitrant technical details." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle
of Beginnings," 1996, p82)
JR>It's a pity. It really is.
These are just crocodile tears. It is not "a pity" - it is *inevitable* given
your own admission you and your ilk are not even "in principle...prepared to
accept things like ID theory."
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------