On another point I would like to say that theistic evolutionists (TE)
are not unanimous when it comes to how God "acts" in evolution. That is
to say that most TE use the same data (to create theories) that
atheistic evolutionists (AE) use (to create their purely naturalistic
theories from beginning to end.) The fact that you have a picture of how
it took place it does not mean you are rigth. IOW, how would you (TE)
explain to a AT the work of God in evolution, your (TE's) theories. I
can easily conclude that you (TE) don't really have ONE theory, you (I
mean TE) are just riding along with AE in the same wagon. Why should I
take the TE position instead of the AE position. Both positions are not
generally accepted, both are incomplete, both have problems and both are
changing all the time. Is that really different than to postulate that
a designer may have form a few elementary structures like Cricks
believes it happenned? or that there appear that there are indeed
designed structures at the molecular level?
Have a nice Weekend.
Eduardo
Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> This is both a reply to Brian and to Eduardo,
>
> At 02:25 PM 1/2/98 -0800, bwnbcg@sjm.infi.net wrote:
> >> 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."
> >
> >
> >This sounds cleaver enough. But when you turn the metaphore around it
> >seems to loose some of its punch. To extend the reasoning:
> >
> >"If you claim the world is not flat, you are obliged to tell us what
> >shape you think it really is."
>
> When people believed that the earth was flat, this was a perfectly good
> response to the critics of flat.
>
> In the oil industry, the easiest thing to do with a prospect is to criticize
> it and point out problems. A prospect is a person's concept of where oil
> might be. It consists of a set of geologic structural maps and a story
> (theory) for how sand and oil got into the structure and a story (theory)
> about how the trap formed. To create this story one must put together
> hundreds of facts into a coherent, self-consistent story. However, even the
> best prospects have problems and can be criticised severely. It is no
> challenge at all to do this. And I might add that after 25 years in the oil
> business, I can kill any prospect I want to with the appropriate criticism.
> But if I kill every prospect which can be killed, I will drill no oil wells
> and find no oil. Only by drilling a well do I really TEST the theory that
> the explorationist put together.
>
> The real challenge in my line of work is to conceive of and defend the
> validity of the story one proposes for why oil or gas should be in a
> particular part. That is, defending a positive explanation rather than
> simply saying all you other guys are wrong.
>
> I think this is what we christians are lacking and I take Paul at his word
> that he and Jon will present a design explanation for homology.
>
> At 03:11 PM 1/2/98 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
>
> >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 say that the complaint that we are outnumbered is very, very weak.
> We have some very smart people and a BIG GOD. But if we don't start
> presenting positive explanations for the data, we will never arrive at the
> point that we have a positive explantion for everything as the evolutionists
> now have. Make no mistake, people generally want to know why things are as
> they are, not why the other guy is wrong. If he can present a reasonably
> compelling picture of how the world came to be as it is, and all we offer is
> why he is wrong, we will lose everytime.
>
> I would also point out that we are unlikely to attract new followers to our
> cause (who can then work on explanations) by merely saying the evolutionist
> is wrong. And besides, Christians always say we are outnumbered and out
> gunned, out financed etc etc. But that is like a football coach saying that
> the other team was able to recruit better and had a larger scholarship fund
> etc. It may be true but the guy lost the football game just the same. If
> you are outgunned you better think smarter.
>
> For those like you who think that the future would present a better solution
> to the problems if we simply had more people and had more money, I would
> like to know the outline of what you thing a solution would look like? I
> never hear things like, "this is the broad general outline of what a
> solution to the evolution/geology problem would be." If we can't outline a
> possible solution, or broad class of solutions, then we are just drifting
> with no strategy at all.
>
> >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.
>
> So where are these "competing theories"? They don't appear under cabbage
> leaves and they aren't developed by merely saying the other guy is wrong.
> It is hard work to generate a solution which matches observational facts and
> by the facts, I mean the details not broad brush stuff that never talks
> about details. I wish we would really do that.
> >
> >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.
>
> You can also plant a tree far from the present one. You don't have to chop
> down the old one first. But you MUST PLANT A TREE, not simply talk about how
> sick the old one is.
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
>
> and
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm