DNAunion: PART 3
[...]
>>>Susan: Some Christians have no trouble weaving the details of the world
into their religion. Their god is merely larger than the world and science.
Other religionists are very threatened by those who examine the world in
detail and are afraid that something will be discovered (or has been
discovered) that will prove their religion to be untrue. I think you, and
nearly all creationists (and I believe that IDists are merely a subset of
creationists) are in the latter category.
DNAunion: [...see other posts for PART 1 and PART 2]
Catch Phrase: "Molecules-to-Men Evolution"
Another supposed indication that one is a Creationist is the use of the catch
phrase "molecules-to-men evolution". In fact, here is a short exchange
between an ant-IDist and me from the www.arn.org Intelligent Design
discussion forum.
[Opponent]: You write 'molecules to men' after claiming not to be interested
in creationism?
DNAunion: Yeah, so? Both the mechanisms underlying Darwinian evolution
(mutation/selection) and the actual words "Darwinian evolution" have been
applied to the evolution of all extant life forms from the MRCA (most recent
common ancestor), and the MRCA from the very first life form(s), and the
first life form(s) from inanimate molecules in the hypothetical "primordial
soup". So, Darwinian evolution deals with evolution starting with mere
molecules, up to humans - i.e., "molecules-to-men" evolution. Remember, it is
"your" side ("hardcore" evolutionists) that proposes this [application of the
term Darwinian evolution to all steps of evolution, starting from inanimate
molecules all the way up to man] - not me. How has my simple three-word
summary misstated anything? How do you conclude that I am now a Creationist
because of this accurate, three-word summary? Should I always have to expand
the simple notion out? Should I have said something like the following:
"Evolution above the species level (the type involved in inanimate molecules
of the putative primordial soup self-origanizing and compexifying until
crossing the threshold to living entities, which then continue to evolve
until becoming protocells, then evolving into true cells, then diverging into
archaea and bacteria, and then a proto-eukaryote "eating" a prokaryote but
instead of "digesting" it, forming a symbiosis with it, followed by 2 billion
years of unicellular life, after which multicellularity burst forth, followed
by the Cambrian explosion, and fish evolving into amphibians, which then
evolved into reptiles, which then evolved into mammals, which then evolved
into primates, which then evolved into humans evolution) is NOT empirically
based." That is awfully demanding. Seems to me that all of those words could
be condensed into the accurate phrase, "molecules-to-men".
[opponent]: And again, you say you have 'no problem with evolution' - even
paraphrase Behe elsewhere pointing out how he has no problem with an old
earth and evolution. Yet later you write things like this, and chastize me
for 'lumping' you in with the likes of Gish. If you could at least try to be
consistent, you might get a warmer reception from me
DNAunion: Did you even read my post? Read it again and then explain how my
accurate, three word summarization leads to your conclusion that I am now a
"Gisher"? Where did I mention the Christian God? Where did I reference the
Bible? Where did I state Creation ex nihilo in 6 literal days? Where did I
mention the Flood of Genesis? Where did I use the Bible as the truth, and
then attempt to mold science so that it fit? Where did I state that evolution
defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Where did I say that humans and
dinosaurs coexisted? Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. If
you have some implied, unstated premises you are secretly using, then maybe
you should fill us all in so that we can follow your logic. As it stands now,
your argument in not consistent. How do three words, "molecules-to-men", make
me a Creationist? Please explain. …
Note that even after these multiple, accurate, and logical challenges to my
opponents invalid claims that I am a Creationist, he continues to lump me in
with Duane Gish (probably the most prominent and hardcore Creationist in the
last century).
Apparently, these prejudiced, unfounded, and stereotypical views that
anti-IDists hold are immensely resistant to change - they are clung to even
after multiple lines of reasoning are presented that clearly indicate the
conflation of ID with Creationist is a fallacy.
One might suggest that if only I could present a quote from a naturalistic
evolutionist using phrases like "molecules-to-men evolution", then surely use
of that accurate summarization of naturalistic evolution could no longer be
presented as evidence of one being a Creationist. The logic appears
consistent, so here is the quote:
"The bold and audacious hypothesis which assumes that life has been created
as a result of the self-organization of matter is new. At the present time
it seems the only valid hypothesis which reconciles matter and life.
Ultimately, such an idea must be confirmed in laboratory experiments. We are
at the very beginning of such an endeavor, and the road from molecules to
life is still very long and full of pitfalls. However, we are entitled to
hope that sometime in the future it can be proved unambiguously that
self-organized properties of reacting and flowing systems constitute the
missing link in the evolution of molecules to man." (Molecules, Dynamics and
Life, A. Babloyantz, Wiley & Sons, 1986, p220; as quoted in Designed or
Designoid, Walter L. Bradley, Chapter 1 of Mere Creation, edited by William
Dembski, InterVaristy Press, 1998, p43)
Note the last half dozen words in the last sentence. This is an explicit use
of "evolution of molecules to man" by a naturalist. Is he now a Creationist?
According to some anti-IDists' logic he is. But that is ridiculous as he
holds that nature in and of itself is capable of transforming inanimate
molecules into man given enough time. Since Babloyantz is not a Creationist,
then is it okay to talk about "evolution of molecules to man", but not okay
to talk about "molecules-to-men evolution"?
Another example of the warped logic used to unjustifiably pigeonhole someone
as a Creationist. The problem does not stem from WHAT is being said, but WHO
is saying it: a double standard is being applied.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 16:29:00 EDT