as has been pointed out to you before humans have no control over the
mutations and variations that they are to select from. Early humans didn't
intelligently design sheep with long wool. They merely kept the ones that
had good wool and ate the ones that didn't. They became another natural
selection factor acting on the variations that came their way.
>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*.
I've never understood why this distinction. "Well, that's in the *lab* but
does it do it in the wild?" If it can happen it can happen. If it can't it
can't. If it isn't possible, it's not possible naturally or unnaturally.
>"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)
Darwin researched every detail of his theory. He knew if bald sheep died in
the cold, leaving only wooly sheep to pass on their characteristics it would
be no different at all from humans eating the bald sheep and saving the
wooly ones for a cash crop. Variation is a given, everyone has observed it.
Selection is selection.
>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
selection is selection. We have no control over (sorry, Bertvan) random
mutation of genetic material.
>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:
The Bible, especially the New Testament is saturated with Platonic thought.
>"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
Gasp! not that! :-)
>members of the same species now living. His creationism owed more to
>philosophy than to revelation." (Numbers R.L., "The Creationists", 1993,
>p7)
So Agassize made his fellow creationists angry by trying to somehow
harmonize the science he had done with the Bible he blieved in. I never knew
that. I wondered how he managed to maintain the two ideas together. I've
also wondered why modern creationists don't lean on him more. He was one of
the very last reputable scientists to maintain an anti-evolutionary stance.
>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:
Christians who find the evidence for evolution compelling believe they are
seeing how their god accomplished the task. They see no conflict. They *do*
have to decide, though, that the talking snake was a metaphor.
>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.
Denton is not a Christian?
>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.
but so far, as far as I know ID "theory" has presented no positive evidence
at all that could not be more easily accounted for by evolution. There's no
scientific method involved in it, and no way I can see that it could be.
There is only belief, which is fine, as long as we don't pretend that it is
more than than.
>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".
there are modern examples of talking snakes? Angels with swords of fire show
up on the David Letterman show? There's hard scientific evidence that the
earth *could* stand still and not completely break apart? Water gets changed
into wine every day by natural processes. There is no particular reason to
believe in this stuff as opposed to the other mythologies from around the
world. I have no particular loyalty to the middle-eastern
mythologies--world-wide floods, dying and reborn gods, descents into the
underworld, etc. As Berthajane is fond of saying, you are free to believe
whatever you want to believe. I just balk at the idea of having
middle-eastern mythology taught in science class.
>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.
that's not true, actually. The myth of George Washington and the cherry
tree, the myth of Elvis still being alive, the myth of UFOs, etc. all
mushroomed very rapidly. It's even easier in a time and place where
information passes largely by word of mouth.
>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.
I thought Denton's deal was "typology" or some such silly thing intended to
prove that species are not related. I thought his stuff was pre-ID theory.
As far as I know ID floated around creationist circles for quite a while,
but didn't really become the Great Hope of creationists until Behe's book.
>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.
Creationism and its variants are mostly a phenomenon of very conservative
Christians and anybody unsophisticated enough to fool with their lame
arguments (which, unfortunately, is a large chunk of the general public).
>SB>Earlier in this post you whined that ID theory doesn't have much funding.
>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.
>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.
they certainly don't want to waste money on scientifically researching
something that is only a propaganda tool in the first place!
>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:
oh? only in the minds of people who aren't paying attention. "Intelligent
Designer" is code for "a god did it." Nobody thinks you think it was Little
Green Guys from outer space.
>"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)
wow! we've got the makings for an out-of-context quote here. Let's see . . .
"I am not a defender of creation-science. . . I am not interested in any
claims that are based upon a literal reading of the Bible.. . "
I bet a paragraph or two down or maybe a page or two later I could find a
line or part of a line that makes Johnson seem to be praising evolution . .
. :-)
>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?
Camus is an artist, not a scientist. He (and I, actually) see "sin" as
"badness."
>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!
I'm an extremely religoius person! You should check out my website :-)
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb