>>TG>A long time ago, I asked this group, when it was composed of
>>>different people, at what point common ancestry (evolutionary)
>>>arguments broke down. For example, are all the species of beetles
>>>descended from a common ancestor? How about all insects? How about
>>>all arthropods? ... Where do you draw the line and on what basis do
>>>you draw the line?
>>
Steve Jones responded:
>>I for one could grant you "common ancestry" all the way back to the
>>first living cell, and indeed back to life's prebiotic "ancestor". So
>>what? That is *not* the point. Darwinism claims that it knows that
>>the process that transformed this prebiotic ancestor into a living
>>cell and from there to a Biology Professor, was an undirected,
>>purposeless, 100% naturalistic process. Some of us are not satisfied
>>that they have made their point and are still waiting for experimental
>>(or other) confirmation of their mechanism(s).
>>
Terry again:
>Thank you for granting me *the point*. You see that is the point. If you
>accept that point, then you are an evolutionist. The claim that evolution
>is undirected, purposeless, 100% naturalistic is a religious claim and not
>a scientific claim. No Christian can accept that view. You and Phil
>Johnson insist on confuse the religious views of atheistic evolutionists
>with their scientific views (much the way that atheistic evolutionists
>confuse them themselves).
I agree with Terry: If you accept common descent -- whatever you believe
about the processes or Personalities that drive common descent -- you are
an evolutionist.
Steve, Phil Johnson and others contend that evolution requires "undirected,
purposeless, 100% naturalistic processes". Sometimes they throw in
randomness too. The problem with this is that it would be very difficult,
scientifically, to prove that no purpose is driving a process (quibble
point: the any process is purposeless in and of itself. Purpose resides in
the person (or Person) who conceives, institutes and directs the process).
Even concluding randomness is very difficult in general. Consequently
throwing in the requirements of purposelessness, randomness or
undirectedness would move evolution from the realm of science to that of
metaphysics.
>
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)