On Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:07:15 -0500, Valued Compaq Customer (Francis
Maloney) wrote:
FM>I have been reading the mail here for a couple months and
thought it was time to introduce myself. My name is Francis
Maloney. I earned a bachelor's degree in the seventies in botany and a
masters degree much later in an unrelated field. I work as a self-
employed carpenter. I live with my 12 year old son in a seaside town
in Massachusetts.
Welcome Francis.
FM>In college, I learned the principles of natural selection and the
theory of species divergence; evolution was presented to me as fact.
My eagerness for acceptance into the field, my hunger for answers
and the absence of any equally authoritative challengers made me a
thorough convert. Once I had grasped the concept of evolution,
reproduction with slight error leading to species divergence over long
periods of time, I set about to explain everything I could by fitting it
to this theory. I discovered it was so broad that I could construct an
evolutionary scenario for every observable facet of life both animal
and human.
Indeed. This is simultaneously the power and weakness of evolution.
It can accommodate virtually any observation (and it's opposite). It
can explain everything, and therefore explains nothing:
"The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical
rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it
explains everything." (Lewontin R.C., "Testing the Theory of Natural
Selection", Nature, Vol. 236, March 24, 1972, p181)
FM>The unfortunate side effect of the evolutionary perspective was
that it reduced biology to mechanics. The emergence of life on earth
was ascribed to the random concentration of complexity on a
molecular script with no meaning beyond survival and reproduction.
When I had the opportunity to go on to graduate school I realized
that, for me, it was the big question that mattered.
The problem with biologists is that they too often go beyond their
field. A biologist can say he sees no meaning in life, but as a
biologist he is not qualified to pontificate on the subject of
meaning. That is the discipline of metaphysicians, such as philosophers
and theologians.
FM>Biologists presented the case of 'Why' as closed; but deeper things
went unanswered and would not be answered in school, where I
feared I would only be lost in rooting out of more intricate pieces of
the same pattern.
Biologists do not even consider the "why", their job is the "how".
FM>In my twenties on a dark night in central Mexico after a few, no
doubt petty, minor defeats, I looked up into the sky and said, "I give
up, my life is worthless to me , you can have it". That was the
beginning of a difficult walk into Christianity. Ten years later with the
birth of my son, I joined an evangelical, (southern Baptist), church.
and ten years after that I became an active member participating in
missions trips and teaching Sunday school.
Praise God!
FM>In the church, I found myself in conflict with some of the literal
interpretations of the bible. In particular, the six day creation and
Noah's flood. I had no conflict whatsoever with Jesus Christ so I kept
my doubts to myself about these minor details.
I am glad you realised that they are comparatively "minor details".
FM>I did find that, in spite of my education, I did not know, with any
kind of authority, what the evidence was for evolution. When I
thought back about the proofs of the central theory, the only things I
could remember for sure were moths changing color and squirrels on
the Kaibab plateau. I had studied plant morphology which included
the plants known in the fossil record.
I find it interesting that even though you had a Bachelor's Degree
in Botany, you did not know what the evidence was for evolution! I
wonder how many other scientists really know what the evidence is for
evolution, and more importantly, what the evidence is *against* it.
FM>Everything was set in an evolutionary framework; sporangiophores
gave way to primitive angiosperms which, because of the marvelous
adaptive ability of the flower came to dominate the plant world. I
never dared to critically examine the underlying but unproven
assumption of descent.
Here I would suggest you be quite clear on your concepts. The two words
"descent" and "evolution" are not synonymous. As Denton points out
common descent is "equally compatible with almost any philosophy
of nature" (including creationist):
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, here
the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which
as we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed),
and the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of
some kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about
how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the
process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal
mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist.
Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant
meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of
nature." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett
Books: London, 1985, pp154-155)
I am a Mediate Creationist and have no problem with common descent,
indeed I have no problems with fully naturalistic, Neo-Darwinist,
`blind watchmaker' evolution. But while I am pretty well convinced
by the evidence for common descent, I am not convinced of the evidence
for evolution.
FM>Many young people brought up in the church are intimidated by
science because of the abrupt transition of thought needed to train as
a biologist or a geologist. This doesn't have to be; a search for truth
does not conflict with Christianity.
Agreed.
FM>My objective is to sort out which claims of evolutionary biology can
be substantiated and which cannot and to use that knowledge to
break the hold of naturalism on our scientific establishment. The
thinkers who broke the hold of the dark ages like Okham and
Copernicus were either Christians or theists who operated in a
Christian culture. It was this culture that cut the floor out from
superstitious belief and allowed science to function.
Welcome to the club! :-)
FM>Our culture today is naturalistic and commercial and the ancient
spiritist mythologies are flooding back in. Many scientific claims
made in the popular media are, I think, products of the public
relations departments of corporations. Much of the research reported
has, at its source, an agenda to push a product or a philosophy.
Unless one gets down into the nitty gritty details, one does not know
what is true and what is engineered to appear true. Unfortunately, the
relatively-clean-from-bias publications are not readily available once
you have left the field.
Again agreed. The major science journals all report concern that the
public no longer respects science as true the way it once did. Much of
this I believe is due to leading scientists like Gould and Dawkins
masquerading as high-priests of a type of secular religion, telling us
that there is no God and no meaning of life. Ordinary people resent
that, but don't know what they can do about it.
FM>The bible says the creation is the evidence of God, (Romans
1:20-23), the evolutionist says that competitive selection of traits
over time accounts for all the life we see and God can be eliminated
as uninformed superstition. If evolution occurred as a natural process,
God the creator is a myth.
Not necessarily. God is fully in charge of natural processes. After
the original ex nihilo creation of matter/energy, creation could
have been by God working 100% through natural processes. I don't
think there is good evidence that He did, but I do not rule it out.
And I certainly see no reason to concede to the non-theists that
evidence for natural processes is non-evidence for God!
FM>If evolution occurred but is God-directed, it is not a natural
process but a supernatural process which scientists never will be able
to explain.
Even here there needs to be clear-thinking. The origin and development
(note I do not to use the question-begging word "evolution"!) of life
may have been "God-directed" 100% through natural processes. This
could also be called "evolution", if it could be shown to be 100%
natural.
But "God-directed" may also include supernatural guidance and intervention
by God at strategic points. In this latter sense it cannot be meaningfully
be called "evolution".
FM>This is why the evolution-creation debate is so controversial and so
critical, there is no middle ground. I have been reluctant to accept that
view but I see no way around it.
There is a "middle ground" called Mediate Creation, after Charles Hodge:
"But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God
created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which
creation was instantaneous and immediate, i. e., without the
intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted
that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into
existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first
and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was
instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any
preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and
implies both....There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not
only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word
of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working
in union with second causes." (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", [1892],
James Clark & Co: London, 1960 reprint, Vol. I, pp556-557)
FM>Perhaps the best explanation we will ever be able to understand is
"God created the heavens and the earth."
I don't think that is an "explanation". It is both an *assumption* and
an *assertion*, and maybe a *description*, but it is not really an
"explanation".
FM>In the meantime, it's an interesting debate.
That's the understatement of the 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
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------