On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:13:21 -0500 you wrote:
BH>Terry M. Gray wrote:
>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?
BH>Steve Jones responded:
SJ>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).
BH>Terry again:
TG>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).
BH>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.
Sorry, but I must regretfully decline the honour! :-) If I believe
that God progressively created every major group by supernaturally
modifying and adding to existing genetic code, starting with a common
ancestor, that does not make me an "evolutionist" -it makes me a
*progressive creationist*.
But if you and Terry insist, like Loyola's Jesuits, in baptising me
at sword-point as an "evolutionist", then you will find me a most
troublesome and recalcitrant "convert"! :-)
And it will also then show how vacuous and meaningless is the term
"evolution"! :-) I will in future remind you every time you object to
my creationism, that I am, according to you both, a fellow
"evolutionist". I think in the end you will find my creationist views
too indigestible, and you will expel me from your august company! :-)
BH>Steve, Phil Johnson and others contend that evolution requires
>"undirected, purposeless, 100% naturalistic processes". Sometimes
>they throw in randomness too.
This is inherent in the idea of "undirected". Even Dawkins, after a
lot of beating around the bush, admits that mutations are random in
the sense of not being biased towards "improvement":
"We can now see that the question of whether mutation is really random
is not a trivial question. Its answer depends on what we understand
random to mean. If you take 'random mutation' to mean that mutations
are not influenced by external events, then X-rays disprove the
contention that mutation is random. If you think 'random mutation'
implies that all genes are equally likely to mutate, then hot spots
show that mutation is not random. If you think 'random mutation'
implies that at all chromosomal loci the mutation pressure is zero,
then once again mutation is not random. It is only if you define
'random' as meaning 'no general bias towards bodily improvement' that
mutation is truly random." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker",
Penguin: London, 1991, p307)
This is the sense in which Johnson uses it too:
"According to the doctrines of orthodox Darwinism and Mendelian
genetics, the "improvements"* in this and all other Darwinian
scenarios come from gene mutations that are random in the sense that
they are not directed either by God or by the needs of the organism
(such as its wish or need to become a flying creature). This point is
important because if an unevolved intelligent or purposeful force
directed evolution, the blind watchmaker would not be blind and a
supernatural element would be introduced into the system. "Evolution"
in which the necessary mutations were directed by a preexisting
intelligence (which did not itself evolve naturalistically) would be a
soft form of creationism and not really evolution at all, in the sense
in which Dawkins and other leading Darwinists use the term." (Johnson
P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., 1995, p79)
BH>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.
I don't disagree. Both naturalism and creationism *are*
"metaphysics", in the sense they pertain to questions of "purpose"
that are beyond empirical science. The question is then, why is *only
one* metaphysical worldview (i.e. Naturalism) taught compulsorily in
public schools and universities as "science", yet other metaphysical
worldviews (eg. theism) are ruled out of court? Johnson points out:
"One example will indicate the problems that are ahead for Darwinists
as the debate continues and expands. Michael Ruse, a leading academic
defender of Darwinism, gave a talk about me at the 1993 annual meeting
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The talk
was supposed to be an attack, but Ruse actually conceded the main
point at issue between us. Darwinism is founded upon a naturalistic
picture of reality, he conceded, and this assumption needs to be
defended honestly rather than concealed. That concession will be
fatal if the evolutionary scientists agree to make it, because the
Darwinian version of evolution has hitherto been presented to the
public as value-free fact. Biologists have authority to tell us facts
that they know from the study of biology, but they have no
intellectual or moral authority to order us to adopt a particular
philosophy that they happen to prefer. Once the crucial influence of
philosophy is admitted, nonbiologists and even ordinary people must be
allowed to decide whether to believe what the biologists are saying."
(Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin",
Christianity Today, October 24, 1994, p26)
Happy Easter!
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------