I quote Terry Gray and Stephen Jones slightly out of context,
Re: using the "supernatural intervention" hypothesis because detailed
scientific explanations are lacking:
> TG>I don't think that there is anything methodologically
> >wrong with do this, but my point is and always has been that what we know
> >seems quite capable of explaining the things that need to be explained for
> >most things.
SJ> This is where I disagree. From what I read, evolution is capable of
> explaining (I mean in plausible detail) very little. Loren has made the
> point of how weak evolution is compared to physical science explanations.
My point was this: given how little we can empirically predict about
present-day biological phenomena such as zygotic development and
microevolution, I am astonished at how confidently some people claim that
macroevolution has been all-but-falsified and is now held for little more
reason than philosophical bias and wishful thinking.
Of course, that cuts both ways: given how little we can empirically
predict about present-day biological phenomena such as zygotic development
and microevolution, I am astonished at how confidently people such as
Gould and Dawkins claim that naturalistic evolution has been PROVED.
I agree with Terry, though: given what we DO know already about biology
(and for various theological reasons), I see little reason to embrace the
progressive-creation-with-supernatural-interventions model for plants and
animals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing worse than an inscrutable omen." | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu