When Art posted his question, I had hoped that he would let us try to give
the correct answer before announcing the textbook answer. I was trained as
a biologist at Purdue and University of Oregon and Art's correct answer is
the answer I would have given. I don't really understand what all of the
flap is about. Progressive evolution theories may have been part of
earlier views conditioned by Christian millenarianism and a social
progressivism or even by a theistic evolution (both of the orthodox
variety, say, Warfield, and the heterodox variety, say, Teilhard de
Chardin), but my training in a more "refined" scientific view of evolution
has not included those elements.
It might be worth noting S.J. Gould's "Full House" monograph (I think it
comes out a bit in "Wonderful Life" as well). With respect to the apparent
increasing complexity that evolutionary history seems to demonstrate, he
points out that there is a wall of minimal complexity and there is only one
direction to move from that wall. So one "expects" to see an increase of
complexity in the course of history. Like the absence of .400 hitters,
increasing complexity is simply a matter of statistics.
There is also the observation of so-called complexity theory that as the
ensemble of low complexity entities grows that at a critical juncture an
emergent order and complexity arises (a la Stuart Kauffman and the
artificial life guys). This, of course, is not a Darwinian evolutionary
idea, but can easily be incorporated into the modern synthesis (much to the
chagrine of some classical Darwinians, although it's interesting to see
Richard Dawkins making a nod toward the non-classical camp in "Climbing
Mount Improbable").
For what it's worth, Howard, I don't really understand your criticisms of
Art or his statement here.
Of course, none of this appeal to statistics and lack of direction or
spontaneous order building implies that God is not in control of the
process or not accomplishing his creative purposes through it. It's
another example of His "using" ordinary means to accomplish his will.
TG
>Art,
>
>OK, one more round....
>
>I said: "1. You made no distinction between: 1) the net effect of
>"evolution" as an ensemble of diverse processes and events, and 2) the
>outcome of individual events within an evolutionary context."
>
>You replied: "Help me out here. How am I supposed to do that? If the
>individual events within the evolutionary context are, to quote the author
>of the text "[do] not move toward a more perfect state nor even toward
>greater complexity", then how can one maintain that the enterprise does?"
>
>OK, I'll try. We need to distinguish more carefully between "one particular
>individual event" and "the entire set of all relevant individual events."
>
> As an illustrative example, take the phenomenon of the diffusion of gas X
>into a space originally occupied by gas Y. The individual molecular
>motions of X are random. One particular individual X molecular motion may
>momentarily be in one direction, but the net effect of the set of all X
>molecular motions may well be a diffusion of X in the opposite direction.
>
>Thus it may well be the case that some, but not all, particular events and
>process relevant to evolution fail to move "toward a more perfect state nor
>even toward greater complexity." Nonetheless, the net effect of the set of
>all relevant events and processes could still be in the direction of, say,
>increasing complexity.
>
>If the textbook author failed to make this distinction evident, then he/she
>is open to criticism. However, anyone who repeats that failure is equally
>open to criticism, right?
>
>Enough on this.
>
>Howard Van Till
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801