Re: Clarification of my Progressive Creationist position

Brian D. Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Fri, 7 Jul 1995 11:53:00 -0400

I accidently sent this to Stephen instead of the reflector, so here
goes again ........................................................

abstract: definition of evolution and its relation to *N*aturalism

sorry about responding so late to this. I can't keep up with you guys :-).

on July 1, Stephen wrote:===========================================
>
>SJ>Evolution is not only a claim that something changed, but it is
>also a claim that it happened by a purely naturalistic, mutation +
>natural selection process.
>

Lloyd replied:=========================================================
>LE>Is this claim really true? I understand that Darwin (Charles) and
>>neo-Darwinist fundamentalists such as Dawkins hold to that claim, but it
>>seems to me (a non-biologist) that many if not most evolutionists today
>>claim that evolution = "change in allele frequencies."
>

Stephen again:=========================================================
>If that is the definition that "many if not most evolutionists today"
>claim that evolution is, then few (if any) would have a problem with
>it. But I have never seen that definition of evolution anywhere.
>Have you any evidence for your claim?
>

evolution = "change in allele frequencies" seems to be the preferred
definition on talk.origins. I was sure I read in Mayr somewhere that
this was a rather extreme, reductionistic, view that provided very
little insight into macroevolution but now I can't seem to find
where he says this, alas :-). I think it's rather obvious that
there is going to be a change in allele frequencies following a
macroevolutionary event, the point though is this doesn't really
explain anything.

Since we're discussing definitions, I'll add that the most common
definition of the notorious "fact of evolution" in talk.origins
is either biological change over time or common ancestry, neither
of which, IMHO, necessarilly implies *N*aturalism.

I think the insistence by practically all evolutionists that evolution
must be a blind process with no purpose etc. etc. is the part which
comes closest to *N*aturalism. Remember Gould's "... paths that a
sensible God would never tread ...", which, IMHO, is a slam against
theistic evolutionists every bit as much as it is against creationists.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Harper | "Do not conclude from your apprenticeship |
| that you have nothing left to learn" -- Pascal |
----------------------------------------------------------------