Reflectorites
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:28:07 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>As this is my first response to one of Bill's posts, a welcome to the
>>Reflector from me to him also. Maybe Bill could also tell us a bit about
>>himself?
BW>Thanks. Graduated from Clarkson University (nee College), Class of '62
>with no backround in biology, just a smattering of engineering. Retired
>after 30 years with the Seattle Police Dept.
A nice city. Visited there in 1997. The weather was great and Mt Ranier
was easy to see. Saw them throwing fish at the Pike St Markets. The
Space Needle was a bit scary though! Loved Washington State.
>I'm leaning toward theistic evolution - God started the ball rolling but
>doesn't need to micro-manage. <G>
Thanks to Bill. May I ask if Bill rules out God intervening at strategic
points in natural history? For example, the origin of life, the origin
of new designs, the origin of humans?
>SJ>As Johnson points out,
>>the "-ism" at the end of "creation" presents it as an ideology, whereas
>>"evolution" (without a corresponding "-ism") is presented as a fact.
BW>Good point. Thanks for correcting my sloppyness.
No problem.
>SJ>Bill does not define what he means by "macroevolution". Literally it
>>means "large-scale evolution," and can simply mean "evolution above the
>>species level":
BW>OK
BY>For us less technical people "macro" usually refers to the creation <G>
>of a new specie which won't naturally cross-breed with the old. "Micro"
>being small changes within a specie.
That's OK, but a species is just an "isolated breeding group" which can be
something as trivial as two otherwise identical fruit flies, one of which
breeds in August and the other in June:
"At a minimum students must learn to distinguish between microevolution
(cyclical variation within the type, as in the finch-beak example) and
macroevolution (the vaguely described process that supposedly creates
innovations such as new complex organs or new body parts). Don't be
impressed by claims that in a few borderline cases microevolution may have
produced, or almost produced, new "species" The definition of "species" is
flexible and sometimes means no more than "isolated breeding group." By
such a definition a fruit fly that breeds in August rather than June may be
considered a new species, although it remains a fruit fly. The question is
how we get insects and other basic groups in the first place." (Johnson P.E.,
"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," 1997, pp.57-58).
So on Bill's criteria, the formation of this new species would be
macroevolution. But no creationist would deny that.
>BW>But a general theory of Progressive Mediate Creation (PCM) *can* explain
>>the origin of human beings
BW>I confess I am not familiar with this term. I must read more carefully.
Bill has nothing to apologise about. The term is mine AFAIK, but it is
based on the broad creationist position of the great 19th century Reformed
Christian theologian Charles Hodge (and Calvin and Augustine before
him), as follows:
"But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created the
universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was
instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the intervention of any second
causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only
of the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have, therefore,
distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and mediate
creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes
the idea of any preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits
and implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the Mosaic
account of the creation....It thus appears that forming out of preexisting
material comes within the Scriptural idea of creating.... There is, therefore,
according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation
ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation;
the power of God working in union with second causes." (Hodge C.,
"Systematic Theology", [1892], James Clark & Co: London, 1960, Vol. I,
reprint, pp.556-557)
>>Darwinism does not merely "purport to describe historical events". If it
>>is to be science and not mere history, it must claim to derive scientific
>>principles from natural "historical events" by which it can explain and predict
>>past, present and future events.
BW>Somehow, I don't consider "I found a deep-throated flower therefore I
>predict I will find a long-beaked bird" predicting a future event.
>(someone quoted Darwin something along this line)
>Predicting next year's strain of flu virus makes a better case for
>predictive ability.
No doubt. But that does not address what I said. If evolution is not to be
mere history, it must do more than just be a chronicle of unique events, like
the history of England:
"For followers of Karl Popper's analysis of science and how it should be
done, there is no more dismal example of a metaphysical system
masquerading as a science than the theory of evolution. Popper himself, in
The Poverty of Historicism, singles out evolutionary theory for an attack.
"Can there be a law of evolution?" "No, the search for the law of the
'unvarying order' in evolution cannot possibly fall within the scope of
scientific method...". By this, Popper means only that the history of living
organisms and their transformations on Earth are a specific sequence of
unique events, no different from, say, the history of England. Since it is a
unique sequence, no generalities can be constructed about it." (Lewontin
R.C., "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection," review of Creed R., ed.,
"Ecological Genetics and Evolution," Blackwell: Oxford, 1971, Nature,
Vol. 236, March 24, 1972, p.181).
BW>One problem with looking for evidence of macro evolution is that most
>creatures larger than microscopic size have to long a gestation period to
>allow much change to take place within the lifetime of an observer.
We still need to nail precisely down what Bill means by "macroevolution".
If Bill is only talking about "macroevolution" in the sense of the origin
"of a new species which won't naturally cross-breed with the old" then no
one, not even the strictest young-Earth creationist, certainly not me,
would even *bother* debating that with Bill.
Now if Bill wants to argue that "macroevolution" defined as: "the evolution
of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties such as new
structures," the "origin of basic designs" and "major structural
transition", *all* ocurred fully naturalistically, then we would have
something to debate about!
BW>Another problem is that new species are being discovered continually but
>the underlying assumption is they have existed undiscovered and not
>recently evolved. After all, we have only been looking for a couple
>hundred years.
See above on "species". Whether *species* have "existed undiscovered"
or "recently evolved" no one would care to debate.
BW>If I am to uneducated to be useful to the discussion feel free to
>disregard.
When I joined the Reflector back in 1995, I was "uneducated" , in the sense
that like Bill, I am a layman in respect of having no formal qualifications
in science, biology, evolution, and indeed theology (my degrees are in
management). However, I was "educated" quickly on this Reflector in the
`school of hard knocks'! That is IMHO one of the *best* educations one could
have in creation/evolution.
I have just started a BSc in Biology which will take me many years to
finish. So I will remain "uneducated" by that criterion for a long time to
come! I remarked to someone privately that "I have gone 5 years [on the
Calvin Reflector] arguing against evolution and only now am I learning
some Biology", but "...most of the evolutionists I have argued with didn't
seem to know much Biology either", so "Maybe ignorance of the details is
a prerequisite in this debate? :-)".
Seriously, Bill might be encouraged by what Johnson wrote:
"Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very
broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and
also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity
highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just
another layman." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, pp.13-14).
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And not- less surprised to be informed, that the watch in his hand was
nothing more than the result of the laws of metallic nature. It is a
perversion of language to assign any law, as the efficient, operative, cause
of any thing. A law presupposes an agent; for it is only the mode,
according to which an agent proceeds: it implies a power; for it is the
order, according to which that power acts. Without this agent, without this
power, which are both distinct from itself, the law does nothing; is nothing.
The expression, "the law of metallic nature," may sound strange and harsh
to a philosophic ear, but it seems quite as justifiable as some others which
are more familiar to him, such as "the law of vegetable nature"-" the law of
animal nature," or indeed as "the law of nature" in general, when assigned
as the cause of phaenomena, in exclusion of agency and power, or when it
is substituted into the place of these." (Paley W., "Natural Theology: or,
Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the
Appearances of Nature," [1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972,
reprint, p.5)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 06:24:09 EDT