Re: no chance

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Sun Sep 24 2000 - 08:49:19 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: the vertebrate eye a `kludge'? (was Problems with selectionism, remarks on order, etc., etc.)"

    Reflectorites

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:21:55 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:

    [...]

    SB>This tidbit sounded hauntingly familiar.
    >
    >"In a belief system that uses magic as the most logical
    >explanation for illness, accidents, and other unexpected
    >occurrences, there is no room for natural causes, accident, or
    >chance. Witchcraft provides the explanation--it can be the
    >cause for most effects. "

    No doubt. If witches were *real* they could be an explanation for claimed
    ID effects.

    BTW in the past Susan has claimed to be "heavily influenced by ... Wicca":

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:44:38 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:

    [...]

    SB>You seem to be assuming that atheism and Christianity are the only moral
    >alternatives. Obviously that is not the case. My own morality is heavily
    >influenced by the Baha'is, Buddhism, and Wicca. The truth is, that all of
    >the key principles of Christianity are found in nearly every human
    >religion. That is because they are *human* moral principles and humans
    >merely attribute them to the religion at hand.
    >
    >Susan
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    which I understood to be a form of "witchcraft":

            "Other interesting essays on this site: If you found this essay
            worthwhile, you might find some of these others of interest:
            abortion, Christianity, death penalty, doomsday cults, female genital
            mutilation, homosexuality, physician assisted suicide, the religious
            sources of the war in Kosovo, and Witchcraft (Wicca) These are
            the 8 most popular essays on our web site." (Robinson B.A.,
            "Ethical aspects of human cloning," 2000-JAN-15.
            http://www.religioustolerance.org/cloning.htm)

    If "Wicca" is in fact a form of "witchcraft", then why is Susan defending
    RM&NS? If witches were real they would defeat Darwinism too! Susan's
    own quote says this:

            "SB>In a belief system that uses magic as the most logical
            explanation...there is no room for natural causes... Witchcraft
            provides the explanation--it can be the cause for most effects. "

    Remember Darwinism does not *know* that all genetic changes in the 3.9
    billion year history of life were random with respect to adaptive
    improvement. It just *assumes* they were because it *believes* as an
    article of faith that there was nothing else available to direct genetic changes
    towards adaptive improvement.

    Therefore *any* form of preexisting intelligent designer(s) would be an
    insuperable problem for Darwinism as a universal explanation of biological
    design.

    Of course neither ID nor Christian theism would claim that "there is no room
    for natural causes" as Susan's quote says that "magic" and "witchcraft
    would. Both ID and Christian theism would limit non-natural causes to unique
    origin events, and in any cause would not even then rule out the Designer
    working through "natural causes".

    Indeed, at its most basic, ID (and at least some versions of Christian theism)
    would see the intervention/guidance of the Designer as no more mysterious
    than that of human intelligent designers.

    Steve

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The most obvious contrasts between the darwinian view of the patterns
    and the rates of evolution, and the evidence that has since been
    documented by the fossil record.... Darwin used the only illustration in the
    first edition of The Origin of Species to explain his hypothesis that the
    patterns of evolution over hundreds of millions of generations were the
    same as those at the level of populations and species. In fact, they are
    clearly distinct in all taxonomic groups. Evolution at the level of
    populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous
    change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available
    morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, largescale
    evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the
    taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking
    features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of
    lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which
    basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the
    many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual
    divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct
    adaptive types." (Carroll R.L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,"
    Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32)
    Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 24 2000 - 18:20:38 EDT