RE: Where is evolutionary theory?

andrew (amandell@jpusa.chi.il.us)
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:05:00 -0600

At 10:14 AM 2/15/99 -0800, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>
>----------
>From: Arthur V. Chadwick[SMTP:chadwicka@swau.edu]
>Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 7:26 AM
>To: evolution@calvin.edu
>Subject: Where is evolutionary theory?
>
>Excerpts from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.3/sciphilo.html
>
>
>JOHN HORGAN is a senior writer for Scientific American and the author
>of The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Science in the Twilight of
>the Scientific Age (Addison-Wesley, 1996).
>
>Horgan: There's some proportionality between the lack of scientific
>substance of a field and the degree to which its most successful
>participants are good rhetoricians. For example, in evolutionary
>biology at this point, all of the really prominent people are great
>writers -- Gould, Dawkins, E. O. Wilson -- and that makes me
>suspicious that they're not really getting at something important
>scientifically, issues that can be empirically resolved, as opposed to
>fields like molecular biology and nuclear physics where rhetoric is
>pretty much irrelevant.
>
>
>Pim: Does this explain why Philip Johnson is so succesful in the field if
ID ? When in fact the field is totally lacking in scientific foundation ?
But unlike in ID, there are thousands of other people working in the field
of evolution. Me thinks Horgan has become a victim of his own rethoric.
I think that the above sweeping remark on ID is useless. Johnson aside
there are many men and women in the "ID" movement with many varying
definitions and views. While I lie somewhere in between here and there
anyone with a reasonable perspective can see the validity in the questions
being asked. Even if all you wish is a more perfect naturalistic God-free
darwinism ID is the perfect refiners fire for removing what is shakeable.
Besides once you are done with the refining you can use the old thousands
in the field to dismiss any thing you can't answer yet. Though I see the
shortcomings in Johnson's work I begin to think there is more to all this
than just honest data and the best working theory. One does wonder why
anyone claiming to be basing their lives on the God of Abraham,Isaac,and
Jacob would find the concept of that God meddling in their beautiful chains
of naturalistic just so stories so objectionable. In the end any limiting
of "science" to the rules of the materialist will eventually exclude some
portions of truth.
Again I am not sold on the death of Darwinism but I assure you there are
many in the ID movement that are as strong on descent as many of you but
maybe still feel that we are missing something important. As christians we
can't afford to be so divided and if you all would put your resources and
considerable strengths humbly into the mix you might be surprised by the ID
folks. I have said the same to them when they bash the poor naturalist
methodologists or whatever. If you can't see the problem Horgan and those
are touching on, (no matter how imperfectly they do so),
then I suspect you are too close.
I say this with respect for all I have learned on this list.
If you disagree strongly well I don't have any degrees so I am without
foundation also and easily dismissed. Of course if our science builds an
environment unpleasing to the Creator and leading the little ones away from
Him we might not find him so easily dismissed at the end.

[
>[And, speaking of inflation:]
>
>Horgan: On the other hand, I don't think there's all that much
>difference between believing in astrology and believing in chaotic
>inflation or string theory. I'm sorry.
>
>Pim: The relevant words "I don't think". Not very convincing as such.
Astrology was a stretch but did you read the whole thing or just the quotes?
Andrew