Terry writes:
>Why must RM&NS be opposed to design and purpose? I would assert that from
>any Christian perspective (whether or not you are young earth creationist
>or ID in the present sense of that concept) that you must believe that God
>designed his creation and created things puposefully. But this is not
>necessarily contrary to RM&NS. (See my rough-draft web essays at
>http://asa.calvin.edu/evolution/noontime.html and
>http://asa.calvin.edu/evolution/veritas.html ) I have no problem taking
>the design advocated by ID'ers to be design (even Dawkins does this, but
>labels it apparent design). But I also have no problem attributing that
>design to RM&NS, since they, as all natural processes, are divinely
>governed.
I agree with all of this (remember that I have no problem with the origin
views of people like Howard and Glenn). My concern is with what actually
happened during natural history. Most think we have it figured out -
abiogenesis followed by evolution by RM&NS. I simply don't see
the basis for so thoroughly excluding intelligent intervention. Look at
it this way: there is a real difference between artificial selection and
natural
selection. And there is a real difference between site-directed mutagenesis
and random mutagenesis. Whether or not RM&NS can be viewed in
an overarching teleological perspective is not the question that matters
to me (as it obviously can). What matters to me is whether natural
history involved any form of intelligent intervention given that evolution
is wide-open to intelligent intervention.
>The rub comes when ID'ers want to argue that some designs can't be
>explained by RM&NS (or some other "natural" process) and that it only comes
>about by some intelligent designer.
Let me make it clear this has never been my position.
>The teleological question is indeed the chief question, but I would suggest
>that the teleological question has nothing to do with science and
>everything to do with philosophy/theology.
I am not interested in putting a label on an explanation. The fact
remains that teleological views can indeed guide research and
generate understanding about the natural world. I thus see no reason
why I should abandon it.
>Thus my question for Mike is this, if we know the mechanisms for gene
>duplication (i.e. we know that it can occur, some of the reasons it occurs,
>what results--diverged sequences--when it does occur) and we see apparently
>duplicated genes (based on sequence comparisons), why isn't the obvious
>conclusion to draw that gene duplication has occurred?
I don't see it as an obvious conclusion, but only an apparently obvious
conclusion
(even jumping to a conclusion). As I mentioned earlier, I am more than
happy to work with it and accept it tentatively, but if other data surface
that
enables me to perceive a trace of intelligent intervention, those similar
sequences have no force against such a tentative inference. That is, they
are
*not* reason to deny intelligent intervention. (Furthermore, I should mention
there is no/little evidence that gene duplication is associated with the
acquisition of novel core functions not already existing in the presumed
ancestral form).
>It seems to me that the only reason not to do this is because of some
>precommitment to the impossibility of evolution because of theological
>reasons, or because of some view that sees design as anti-thetical to RM&NS.
I do not think evolution is impossible; I think it happened. I do not
see "design" as being anti-thetical to RM&NS, only a subset of design
that involves intelligent intervention. For example, intended mutations
are not random and artificial selection is not natural selection. Yes,
mutations happen and so does natural selection. This probably explains
the origin of wolves and coyotes. But it doesn't explain the origin of
collies and dachshunds. Random mutations and natural selection may
explain why certain jellyfish fluoresce at different wavelengths, but they
don't explain why it is that today many very different embryos fluoresce
green.
If I jump to the conclusion of gene duplication simply because sequence
similarity is found, as one open to the teleological view of intelligent
intervention, I risk missing important clues about natural history.
If there is reason to suspect a system owes its origin to intelligent
intervention, sequence similarity provides no reason for dismissing
this suspicion.
Sequence similarities interpreted as past gene duplications (RM)
modified by a blind watchmaker (NS) are not, IMO, evidence
that RM&NS were indeed the driving forces behind evolution.
I am quite aware that the metaphysics of many atheists and
theists alike lead them to jump to this conclusion, but since I
lack such a metaphysical guide (as mine do not entail this
belief), I need some plain old evidence.
In the end, I does not bother me one bit that you approach the
world as you do. Just don't expect me to adopt your approach.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 17:32:09 EST