>>Evolution as a theory has its problems, but whatever the _true_ explanation
>>of our origins is, it must, at least in a crude sense, resemble evolution.
>Here we go again. Phillips says that ANY explanation of origins *must*
>resemble evolution. No it must'nt! Folks, there is no reason to COMPEL us
>to see the evidence in an evolutionary configuration. What *seems* to be an
>evolutionary way of viewing the origin and development of life simply
>doesn't make it so!
There is evidence that the universe is old. There is evidence that the earth
is old. There is a fossil record that records a progression of life forms,
very ancient life being relatively simple and more recent life being more
complex. This evidence is quite independent of any evolutionary framework.
One may only reject it if one completely rejects the scientific worldview (not
just small bits, but substancial portions of it - perhaps even the whole lot).
Evolution is a theory which attepts to explain the observations of the
previous paragraph. Maybe evolution is the true model? Maybe it isn't. This
is the question the reflector is examining. What is certain though (unless
one wishes to throw out science all together) is that the _true_ model,
whatever it is, will explain the observations of the previous paragraph. It
will have this in common with evolution. This is what I meant in my earlier
post where I said that the _true_ explanation must "at least in a crude sense,
resemble evolution."
> I know this is a difficult thing for many who wrestle
>with this issue, however, the *GAPS* in the evidence are what have been used
>as the basis for promoting an evolutionary view of the evidence, NOT the
>evidence itself. The "missing link" presupposes that there IS a missing
>link, even though the evidence doesn't really require us to see things that
>way. How hysterical!
The nature of scientific enquiry is to propose a model, see what consequences
this model predicts, then go looking for those things predicted. If they
are found then we accept this as evidence supporting the theory. If they
the predictions do not come to pass, then the theory is wrong - which
means we either revamp the theory, or reject it completely. This is the
nature of scientific enquiry. Evolution theory proposes the idea of
intermediates. If they do not appear in the fossil record to date and
evolution is true, then these intermediates are indeed _missing_. We
would presumably, with a bit of looking, find these "missing links". If
on the other hand, evolution is false, then we might suspect that a
search for these so called "missing links" would fail. Searching for
a "missing link" does not have to "presuppose that there IS a missing
link" - it can simply be an attempt to either falsify or verify
the evolutionary theory. There is nothing wrong with this.
>This slick little technique effectively sucks us into
>the notion that we are now on a hunt for something we expect to find. Oh,
>we KNOW it's out there. It MUST be out there, somewhere. Why? Because
>someone came up with the IDEA that it *must* be. So, as in the story I
>submitted the other day about the rats in the maze, we are all in a hunt to
>find what we expect to find. And because we expect to find it or see it,
>guess what? WE WILL! Such an approach is seriously flawed.
If we do find it, then this is evidence in favour of evolution. If
you disagree with evolution, then surely you would expect that these
"missing links" WON'T be found?
Perhaps you are suggesting that things will be found which are claimed to be
"missing links" when actual fact they are not. Well then, feel free to expose
what you believe to be fraudulent science, but don't oppose the _search_ for
"missing links" or you will be opposing science itself.
Yours in Christ,
Mark Phillips.