<<Glenn's phrase "self-deluding" is a simple & I think correct answer to
Terry's
question. Christian anti-evolutionists want so badly for evolution to be
false, a
desire generally formed before any scientific evidence is considered, that
they will seize upon any discrepancy or unsolved problem as a sign of _The
Twilight of Evolution_. >>
George,
I do not agree with those who predict the imminent demise of evolutionary
theory. But I disagree with your implied assumption that its durability is a
result of its validity as a theory. Darwinism is no longer just a scientific
theory. It has become one of the major assumptions of Western culture, which
is one of the reasons for its durability. It does not exist just on its
scientific merits but also because it has displaced Christianity as the linch
pin of Western culture, and has become the secular myth of our culture, as
Denton correctly pointed out. This helps insure its permanent status for a
lone time.
While your characterization of Christian anti-evolutionists may fit some
people, not everyone who questions evolution falls into that category. There
are those who are profoundly _skeptical_ of evolution for scientific reasons,
and they are following to the best traditions of science. You need a category
of _honest skeptic_ between Christian anti-evolutionists and theistic
evolutionists.
<<& of course there are _some_ discrepancies & problems>>
You understate the discrepancies and problems. Take the origin of life.
Natural selection accounts for how cells and organisms adapt and survive, but
says nothing about the _origin of life_. This is not a mere discrepancy or
problem. This is a fundamental matter, and laboratory research on it has
practically ceased because of the intractibility of the problem. Take the
origin of sexual reproduction. The entire section in the 25 September issue
of _Science_ was devoted to research on the evolution of sex. Yet all the
articles deal only with _maintenance_ of sexual reproduction., but not a word
about the _origin_ of sex. Take the orgins of transitional forms. Why did
mammals leave their terrestrial environment to become seagoing whales when
they were presumably reasonably well adapted to their terrestrial environment
and any shift toward becoming a whale would only decrease their immediate
adaptation to their current environment, and should be eliminated. In short,
evolution is generally silent on the topic of origins. Would you agree?
Evolution has also generally failed to solve Mivart's dilemma, which applies
to many transitions: "Natural selection is incompetent to account for
incipient stages of useful structures." How does natural selection account
for myriad of incipient stages in the transition of terrestrial mammals to
seagoing mammals, when those incipient stages decrease their current
adaptation to the land environment and do not increase their adaptation to the
sea? I do not consider this a minor discrepancy. Gould has said that
Mivart's dilemma has never been resolved.
<<because both theory & observation are still in process.>>
I am uneasy with such a statement, George. It comes very close to "evolution
of the gaps."
<<While scientific evidence should not be ignored in discussions with such
folk, the most basic need is honest discussion of theological presuppositions.
For if some one's religious beliefs precludes the possibility that evolution
_might_ be true, scientific evidence will always be interpreted consistently
with that view.>>
You don't mean to imply, do you, that if one's theological presuppositions
were to include the possibility that "evolution _might_ be true", he/she will
then accept theistic evolution?
Best regards,
Bob