I received this also direct and not via the Reflector, this time from Susan.
It did not have "private" on it, it had no personal salutation and it looks
like it was meant for the Reflector, so I am replying via the Reflector.
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:39:48 -0600 Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Maybe Chris could explain *why* ID theory would imply that animal
>>breeding will not work?
SB>ID theory would have to imply that animal breeding (to get another species)
>would *not* work.
Why? As I have already pointed out, "animal breeding" is an act of
intelligent design!
SB>It has to somehow prove that no species can evolve into another.
Even if "animal breeding (to get another species)" did or did not work, it
would not necessarily "prove" or disprove "that no species can evolve into
another" *in the wild*. Animal breeding requires *human* intelligence
which nature does not have. Animal breeding is just an *analogy* used by
Darwin because of his lack of evidence of natural selection in the wild:
"Darwin could not point to impressive examples of natural selection in
action, and so he had to rely heavily on an argument by analogy. In the
words of Douglas Futuyma:
`When Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, he could offer no good cases
of natural selection because no one had looked for them- He drew instead
an analogy with the artificial selection that animal and plant breeders use to
improve domesticated varieties of animals and plants. By breeding only
from the woolliest sheep, the most fertile chickens, and so on, breeders
have been spectacularly successful in altering almost every imaginable
characteristic of our domesticated animals and plants to the point where
most of them differ from their wild ancestors far more than related species
differ from them.' (Futuyma D.J., "Science on Trial", 1982, p117)
The analogy to artificial selection is misleading. Plant and animal breeders
employ intelligence and specialized knowledge to select breeding stock and
to protect their charges from natural dangers The point of Darwin's theory,
however, was to establish that purposeless natural processes can substitute
for intelligent design. That he made that point by citing the
accomplishments of intelligent designers proves only that the receptive
audience for his theory was highly uncritical. Artificial selection is not
basically the same sort of thing as natural selection, but rather is something
fundamentally different. Human breeders produce variations among sheep
or pigeons for purposes absent in nature, including sheer delight in seeing
how much variation can be achieved. If the breeders were interested only in
having animals capable of surviving in the wild, the extremes of variation
would not exist. When domesticated animals return to the wild state, the
most highly specialized breeds quickly perish and the survivors revert to
the original wild type. Natural selection is a conservative force that
prevents the appearance of the extremes of variation that human breeders
like to encourage. What artificial selection actually shows is that there are
definite limits to the amount of variation that even the most highly skilled
breeders can achieve." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp17-18).
The only real test that "species can evolve into another" is what happens
*in the wild*. There are such examples in the wild like the Galapagos
Finches, but even these can still interbreed successfully when they have to:
"Research in the period 1973-1982 on Daphne Major was fairly typical of
field studies until the "big one," a super El Nino, hit the Galapagos in
January of 1983. Unusually warm water in the eastern Pacific stirred up a
rainy season like none other before it. These desert islands became almost
tropical with plant abundance and bird food was plentiful. In turn breeding
was frequent and productive such that by June there were more than two
thousand finches on the island. More important than the rush of matings
within species was the hybridization between species of Ereospiza. A
scandens male mated with a fortis female and produced four viable
offspring. Three of the hybrids mated to produce forty-three grandchildren.
In yet another hybridization, a fuliginosa female mated with a fortis male,
and they now have great grandchildren. "But since 1983, which can truly
be called a watershed year, the hybrids have done better. Those that
hatched after that year were more likely to breed. They were also slightly
more successful than the offspring of purebred fortis or fuliginosa pairs.
And these odd couples went right on producing for the rest of the 1980s."
(Weiner J., "The Beak of the Finch", 1994, p124). "Crosses between fortis
and scandens the medium beak and the cactus finch, are doing better yet."
(Weiner J., 1994, p125) What do you suppose the Grants made of that?
Certainly they would have observed that these three species are really only
one species if they can interbreed and produce offspring that are fitter than
their parent species which were successful up to that time." (Cumming
K.R., "Reticulate Evolution," Impact No. 289, Institute for Creation
Research: El Cajon, CA, July 1997 http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-
289.htm)
But AFAIK no creationist today denies that species arise naturally from other
species in the wild. I certainly don't.
SB>and that each and every species popped into existence separately,
>because that's what the *Bible* says they did.
Susan needs to read "the Bible". It does not say that "each and every
species popped into existence separately". This was a *philosophical* view
held by some `creationists' in Darwin's day, like Cuvier, Owen and Agassiz.
They were called `creationists' but they derived their ideas from Platonic
philosophy, not the Bible:
"Already an internationally acclaimed authority on fossil fishes and glaciers
when he emigrated from Switzerland to the United States in 1846, Agassiz
used his scientific standing to defend the idea of special creation. His
creationism, however, bore little resemblance to the narrative found in
Genesis. Agassiz adamantly refused to let religion determine the course of
his science, whether it be with respect to the age of the earth, the
appearance of humans, or the reality of the Noachian flood. The scion of a
long line of Huguenot ministers, Agassiz by 1859 had drifted into nominal
Unitarianism and sporadic churchgoing. His ice-age theory had helped, in
the 1840S, to drain the last drops of geological significance from the
Noachian deluge, and his espousal of the plural origin of the human races in
opposition to the biblical account of Adam and Eve had, in the 1850S,
aroused the enmity of many devout Christians. Instead of a single Edenic
creation in six days, he taught that the geological evidence indicated a
series of catastrophes and creations by which the earth had been repeatedly
depopulated and repopulated. In his Essay on Classification (1857) he
explained that "species did not originate in single pairs, but were created in
large numbers," in the habitats they were intended to populate, and he
dismissed the antiquated notion that fossils were "the wrecks of the Mosaic
deluge." Living species thus had no genetic connection with previous
inhabitants of the earth-and might not even be related, except ideally, to
members of the same species now living. His creationism owed more to
philosophy than to revelation." (Numbers R.L., "The Creationists", 1993,
p7)
What "the Bible" actually says is that "plants and animals come forth from
the earth at God's command", by God's supernatural command working
mediated through natural elements and processes:
"Scripture, on the one hand, recognizes the truth that inheres in evolution
when it has plants and animals come forth from the earth at God's
command (Gen 1:11, 20, 24). On the other hand, however, it says that the
earth could only bring forth these organic entities by a word of divine
omnipotence and that these organic entities existed side by side from the
beginning as distinct species, each with its own nature (Gen. 1:11, 21). It
cannot be ruled out, therefore, that within the species all sorts of changes
could occur, nor has the freedom of science to further define the
boundaries of these species been curtailed. It is not even absolutely
necessary to view all the species now listed by botany and zoology as
original creations." (Bavinck H., "In the Beginning", [1928], 1999, reprint,
p144)
In any event, Susan is again getting confused between " ID theory" and
"the Bible". There are some members of the ID movement who AFAIK are
not even Christians (e.g. Denton), and at least one who may not even be a
theist.
All "ID theory" aims to show from the evidence of nature that there
probably was a Designer. While those of us in the ID movement who are
Christians will believe the Designer is the Christian God, there is no
possible way to prove it.
SB>ID theory is totally constrained to the Christian mythology.
Susan actually spoils her argument by pejorative terms like "mythology".
She would need to first show that Christianity *is* "mythology". This
indeed was the position of an influential minority of German existential
theologians in the late 19th-early 20th century. But it has been abandoned,
even by liberal theologians who don't believe Jesus rose from the dead,
because there simply was not enough time between Jesus' death in c. 27
AD and the earliest New Testament writings proclaiming His death and
resurrection, eg. I Corinthians in c. 45 AD, for a Jesus myth to arise. Even
liberal scholars like J.A.T. Robinson of "Honest to God" fame, have
admitted that all the four Gospels pre-date the destruction of Jerusalem in
70 AD. The basic problem is that myths take centuries to arise and it is
essential for their development that no one is still alive who know the
original person or thing being mythologised. In the case of Jesus, there
were plenty of people, both friend and foe, who knew Him.
Now on to what I presume is Susan's main point that "ID theory is totally
constrained" by Christianity or Christian theology. This is simply not true.
The case of Denton alone disproves it. That a majority of Design theorists
may be Christians does not mean that Design theory is necessarily
Christian. The vast majority of Christians are not Design theorists and
indeed some Christians, like the theistic evolutionists, are actually opposed
to Design Theory. That ID theory may have no problems with some things
that some Christians have problems with (eg. death before Adam's sin, etc)
does not mean they can constrain ID theory.
SB>Earlier in this post you whined that ID theory doesn't have much funding.
It is interesting how evolutionists see any attempt to state factually the
uphill battle that ID theorists or creationists face, as `whining'.
the struggle against materialism-naturalism! I know I am. Indeed, it seems
to me that if there is any `whining' these days it is coming from the
evolutionist side!
SB>Trust me, it doesn't need it.
Actually I am inclined to agree with Susan! A bit more funding would be
nice, but it is not necessary for ID theory to achieve its objective-to drive a
wedge between materialist-naturalist philosophy and science.
SB>One of the reasons it isn't massively funded
>by conservative foundations and organizations (the Baptist churchs in
>Oklahoma spend more on parking lot maintenance in one month than the
>University Zoology department gets in a year) is because it has no
>underpinnings and they know such funding would be a waste of
money.
Well this actually undercuts Susan's argument and supports mine! The fact
that major Christian denominations don't spend as much money on ID
theory as they do on parking, shows that ID theory is not a high priority
with most mainstream Christian organisations.
SB> ID is merely a tissue of propaganda
If Susan and other evolutionists want to believe that, it is OK by ID theory.
It will make our job easier!
SB>Whenever anybody tries to investigate it
>seriously, they end up investigating evolution and that is not acceptable.
I am not sure what exactly Susan means here. Who exactly has investigated
ID theory seriously? And what does it mean they ended up "investigating
evolution"? And who was this "not acceptable" to and why?
SB> ID theory must prove that the Bible is hard science--or make people *think*
>the Bible is hard science. That is its sole purpose.
Again Susan is getting mixed up between ID theory and "the Bible" and in
particular with the `scientific creationist' agenda to "prove that the Bible is
hard science".
I don't know of any ID theorists who is trying to "prove that the Bible is
hard science". Indeed it is a major objective of ID theory to keep Bible and
science issues separate:
"I am not a defender of creation-science, and in fact I am not concerned in
this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and
the scientific evidence."
"I am not interested in any claims that are based upon a literal reading of
the Bible, nor do I understand the concept of creation as narrowly as
Duane Gish does."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial" 1993, pp14 & 115)
SB>For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
>of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
>this one.
>--Albert Camus
If Camus was an atheist, where does he get "sin" from? And if he thinks
that "life" is nothing more than a chemical process, how can one *sin*
against it?
It sounds like Susan, in rejecting as "mythology" the one system, which can
meaningfully talk of "sin" and "life", and cure those "despairing" of it, has
embraced a *real* "mythology" which cannot!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The definition widely adopted in recent decades-"Evolution is the change
of gene frequencies in populations"-refers only to the transformational
component. It tells us nothing about the multiplication of species nor, more
broadly, about the origin of organic diversity. A broader definition is
needed which would include both transformation and diversification."
(Mayr E., "The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and
Inheritance", Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1982, p400)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------