Happy New Year,
I agree with you in part only. Although one desires an alternative theory to
be postulated, this is not strictly necessary or mandatory. Like Berlinski
said to one of his critics (paraphrasing here) "Should I not complain of an
awful tasting dish because I don't know how to cook?".
Every day, every week, every month and every year since Darwin, "evolutionary"
data has been collected and published by scientists. Even today, the number
of scientists working on a "Darwinistic Model" outnumbers drastically those
with new theories - we may even include Gould among the proponents of "new"
theories, he is outnumbered too, as are TE's. Bearing in mind the enormity of
the data, the fact that Darwinism is still in controversy is significant.
According to you Christians should revise their apologetics under an
evolutionary framework, but according to many scientists, even some atheists,
there is a need for revising the main scientific principles or evolution. If
some scientists question the current beliefs of how evolution really took
place they are themselves in the same position of the IDers, they have not
come up with a robust alternative.
I would argue that new theories will need time to develop properly if they are
to compete or replace the current model/theory. Given the number of
scientists needed and the $$$ required to develop new theories we can assume
that a long time will pass before we see any major change. Today evolutionary
materialistic philosophy is applied across the board in ALL scientific
disciplines one way or another. To combat the status quo will not be easy --
it took more than a century to remove the "church" from the scientific pulpit.
We need competing theories, it promotes radical thinking and competition. We
all may learn something from these new theories and the debates that are
raging -- I already did.
To cut a tree down to plant another one in its position one needs to uproot
the old tree first, work the ground and then plant the new tree. I like this
metaphor to explain the current approach of IDers. Gould, I see, as modifying
the current tree or as plating a new "similar" tree
altogether.
Salutis
Eduardo
> Re: Wells and Nelson's article
>
> Glenn Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
> Thu, 01 Jan 1998 14:38:20 -0600
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I thought about this for a couple of days before responding.
> At 10:06 AM 12/31/97, Paul A. Nelson wrote:
> >Glenn:
> >
> >The point of our article ("Homology: A Concept in Crisis," _Origins &
> >Design_ 18 [1997]:12-19) is that neo-Darwinists claim that homology
> >can be explained naturalistically, without recourse to design. The only
> >way a naturalistic explanation can succeed, however, is to provide a
> >naturalistic mechanism. Two such mechanisms have been proposed:
> >genetic programs and developmental pathways. Both proposals are
> >contradicted by the evidence; therefore, neo-Darwinism has failed to
> >exclude design as an explanation for homology. We do not offer a
> >detailed explanation for homology based on design, which will prove to
> >be a major research task, but merely suggest that, in the absence of a
> >demonstrated naturalistic alternative, design could be a fruitful way to
> >approach the issue. We hope to have more to contribute to this approach
> >in the near future.
>
> I am reminded of the chastisement Barry Lynn gave the anti-evolutionists
> during his opening comment, quoting Martin Gardner. "If you claim the world
> is not round, you are obliged to tell us what shape you think it really is."
>
> The thing that so saddens me is that my fellow Christians seem content to
> merely throw rocks at the other side but never present any concepts that can
> be falsified. In other words we don't take the risk to suggest a
> hypothesis, which explains the data which might be proven wrong. (i.e.,
> tell us what shape the earth is)
>
> I would challenge you with this: If they are so wrong, why can't you
> explain it better? Or should I say, explain it at all?
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
>
> and
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm