On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:11:45 -0600, John E. Rylander wrote:
JR>There's an interesting article ("Untangling Evolution") on
>Christian and Darwinian Evolution at
>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9712/barr.html.
Thanks for this. I agree with much if not all that Barr wrote. I
would especially comment on the following:
>"...In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins argues that natural selection
>can give "design without design." The "watch" of the title refers
>to the famous argument of William Paley, and in this context stands
>for the intricate structures to be found in the biological world,
>which many think give proof of a divine Maker. There is no maker,
>says Dawkins, except the universe itself÷his "blind watchmaker." To
>eliminate design, as Dawkins would do, one must have some mechanism
>that produces form from formlessness, order from chaos. But no
>scientific explanation does this. Science explains order by
>deriving it from order. Consider the formation of crystals, an
>oft-cited example of the spontaneous emergence of order. The
>patterns exhibited by crystals are a reflection of underlying
>symmetries and principles of order that apply to the atoms
>themselves, to the space in which they move, and to the laws that
>govern their behavior. These, in turn, can be traced to deeper
>levels of physical law. No matter how profoundly one penetrates
>into the hidden workings of the world, it is not some formless flux
>that is encountered, but ever more remarkable and beautiful
>structure. And this is just the point. To have evolution one must
>have a universe. And not just any universe will do. Rather, it is
>beginning to appear that the laws of nature must be carefully
>arranged." (Barr S.M., "Untangling Evolution", First Things, 78,
>December 1997, pp14-17)
This is similar to the argument of Christian philosopher Richard
Swinburne in his "Argument from the Evolution of Animals and Men" as
part of his cumulative case for God's existence. (See
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html). Dawkin's `blind
watchmaker' argument claims that: "All appearances to the contrary,
the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics...."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p5). The impression is
that the laws of physics are fairly ordinary. But Dawkins is
hoisted on his own petard, because, as agnostic physicist Paul
Davies has pointed out, the laws of physics very special:
"A careful study of the laws of physics suggests that they in a
number of intriguing ways: in their coherence and harmony, their
economy, their universality and dependability, their encouragement
of diversity and complexity without total chaos, and so forth."
(Davies P., "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science", in
Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose", 1994, p56)
>"The Argument from Design remains perfectly healthy, then, even if
>we concede to natural selection all that is claimed for it by the
>most naturalistic theory of evolution. But, as it happens, there is
>no reason to concede so much to it. It is far from clear that
>natural selection is really up to the job, not only of crafting
>complex organisms, but even of explaining what goes on in the
>simplest living cell, as the molecular biologist Michael J. Behe has
>amply demonstrated in his recent book, Darwin's Black Box.
>Moreover, the times available for natural selection to have worked
>these wonders were far shorter than was commonly supposed. The
>Cambrian Explosion, that wild proliferation of new forms of life
>that occurred about 540 million years ago, took only a few million
>years. And it is now generally admitted that most species make
>their appearance in the fossil record quite suddenly, geologically
>speaking." (Barr, 1997)
Again I agree. Even the most fully naturalisticevolution, as
espoused by atheists like Richard Dawkins, if proven, would be
compatible with Biblical theism. The Biblical God is fully in
control even of apparently random events (Pr 16:33; 1Ki 22:34). But
before we rush to reconcile theism with "blind watchmaker" evolution
we first need to be satisfied that it is *true*. The current trend
in biology is away from natural selection, as Richard Lewontin
notes:
"Dawkins's vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution
but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior,
while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and
theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved
in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in evolution.
(Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons", review of "The
Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9,
1997, pp30-31)
>"The evidence for the common ancestry of life is very strong. To
>give some idea of what it is, I will simply list a few of the kinds
>of questions that common ancestry gives an answer to. Why is it
>that bats and whales have so much in common anatomically with mice
>and men? Why do virtually all vertebrate forelimbs have the same
>basic "pentadactyl" (five-fingered) design? (This is one of
>numerous examples of "homologous" structures exhibited by related
>species.) Why do some species of whales have vestigial and quite
>useless pelvic and leg bones, when they have no pelvises or legs?
>Why are all mammals native to Australia marsupials? Why is there a
>sequence of reptiles in the fossil record (the "therapsids") with a
>clear progression from reptilian to mammalian characteristics? Why
>does the record of life on earth show a clear trend towards greater
>complexity? Why is it found that the most ancient bird fossils are
>reptilian, and the most ancient whales have feet? Why do salamander
>embryos have gills and fins that they will never use? The point in
>asking these and many similar questions is not only that common
>ancestry can answer them, but more significantly that no real answer
>on any other basis has been found to any of them....Unanticipated
>discoveries in various fields have strengthened the case for common
>ancestry. The theory of plate tectonics and continental drift
>resolved a number of evolutionary puzzles...And dramatic
>confirmation has come from gene and protein sequencing..." (Barr
>1997)
I have no real problem with common ancestry, although it may turn
out to be more complicated than first thought (eg. homologous parts
do not always have homologous genes, homologous structures in
different taxa do not arise from the same embryonic parts). Also,
there is a lack of nascent structures and many claimed homologies
may out to be analogies (ie. convergence).
>"The critical distinction is between divine intervention and the
>other ways God acts. By "intervention" I mean something that goes
>beyond the order of nature, an effect produced by God in the world
>that contravenes either the laws of nature or the laws of
>probability. Intervention is not to be confused with providence.
>While faith tells us that all events are governed by providence,
>divine intervention is rare...modern astrophysics has an adequate
>naturalistic explanation of the formation of the sun and stars,
>which is not challenged even by most of those who question
>evolution...it is now clear that no intervention was required to
>produce them. There are those who argue, nevertheless, that a
>consistent (or at least a full-blooded) theism requires intervention
>for the production of living things, since the alternative to
>intervention is a "naturalism" based on "blind forces" and
>"chance."...faith and reason tell us that man has a spiritual soul,
>and therefore that purely naturalistic accounts of human realities
>are false. We believe, as well, that divine intervention has
>happened in human affairs, in particular in the miraculous events of
>salvation history. Since the world of plants and animals is
>intermediate between the human and the inanimate, it is not obvious
>whether we should expect to find signs of intervention there...If
>there had to be reptiles for there later to be men, then it would
>seem quite in character (if one may speak so) for God to have
>intervened to produce reptiles, by arranging, say, the necessary
>mutations or selective pressures. On the other hand, one might
>expect no intervention in those parts of the biological world that
>do not involve man in any significant way." (Barr 1997)
Again, I agree with much of the above. I do not believe there must
have been divine intervention at strategic points in the history of
life, but on the other hand I do not rule it out apriori. If
naturalism cannot offer a plausible explanation of the appearance
of a *strategic* (ie. not necessarily the copulatory apparatus of
the male dragonfly!) novelty in the history of life (eg. the
origin of life, the origin of life's major groups, the origin of
man), then I would assume there has been supernatural intervention.
>"What troubles most people about evolution is its application to
>human beings. One reason is that some think it degrading to have
>apes as ancestors. But it is not obviously more dignified to have
>come directly from slime. A deeper reason is the discontinuity that
>we know to exist between human beings and the rest of
>creation-between spirit and matter. Yet it is hard to see that this
>is more of an issue for evolution than it is for human reproduction.
>We are in no position to observe the immediate antecedents of Adam,
>but we know that those of each human child today were a sperm and an
>egg, which are without doubt purely material in themselves. The
>real question is whether man is more than a mere arrangement of
>atoms. If he is, then it would seem to matter little how those
>atoms came to be arranged as they are, whether by natural processes
>of evolution or reproduction, or by supernatural intervention....As
>long as we maintain the scriptural and philosophical truth that
>man has a spiritual nature, there can be nothing to fear in merely
>biological facts." (Barr 1997)
Strangely, I have never had a problem with the idea that I could
have had an ape for an ancestor. The Bible says that animals were
made from "earth" (Gn 1:24 and man was made from "dust" (Gn 2:7), so
there would be no problem if man was made intermediately from
animals.
>It is otherwise for the atheist. It is his faith that is at stake
>in this controversy, not ours. His faith requires that chance and
>natural law must be adequate to explain the facts of evolution. If
>they do not appear to be adequate, he must nevertheless insist that
>they are. It is for him, then, to dogmatize about strictly
>scientific matters, not for us. We can be content, and should be
>content, to be guided only by the evidence." (Barr 1997)
Agreed. The theist can follow the evidence wherever it leads
because God can work through either natural or supernatural means.
But the atheist can only believe in natural causes, because
according to his first principles, nothing else is available.
"An essential step in the reasoning that establishes that Darwinian
selection created the wonders of biology, therefore, is that nothing
else was available. Theism is by definition the doctrine that
something else was available." (Johnson P.E., "What is Darwinism?",
1992. http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/wid.htm)
Happy New Year!
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------