On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:35:24 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
Thanks to Chris for posting this comparison. In order to answer it, I have
recast it in the form of a post from Chris. Also, I prefixed the Evolution
answer with "[E]" and the Design answer with "[D]".
With my answers the post will be *very* long, so I will break it up into
manageable chunks. From past experience, such large, multi-part posts
multiply exponentially, so if Chris replies, I may not respond.
CC>I tried to send the table at the following URL, but it was apparently
>too large for a post to this list, or html posts are filtered out, so I FTP'd it
>to my ISP's machine instead. It's a table comparing the theory of
>evolution
This assumes there is such a thing as "the theory of evolution". But there
are really only *theories* of evolution. Gould says that "evolution (as
theory) is indeed `a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting
hypotheses,'...." (Gould S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between
Fact and Theory", Discover, January 1987, p65). And Mayr says that
"Evolution shows so many facets that it looks alike to no two persons. The
more different the backgrounds of two biologists, the more different their
attempts at causal explanation." (Mayr E., "Populations, Species and
Evolution", 1974, p1).
CC>and design theory on a number of points. Perhaps some readers may
>offer additions or corrections.
>
>http://www.sfo.com/~ccogan/Comparing%20Evolution%20and%20Design%20Theory.htm
CC>A Comparison of the Evolution Theory and Design Theory
>Issue or Question
>[E] Evolution
Chris does not say what exactly he means by "Evolution". A vague theory
is not scientific. To be a scientific theory, Chris must explain what
"evolution" is and how exactly evolution works:
"Although Standen [Standen A., "Science is a Sacred Cow", 1950] writes
popularly he nonetheless has put his finger on two of the sorest points of
evolutionary theory, showing its possible ultimate embarrassment with
facts. (i) He correctly observes that there is the vague theory and the
precise theory. The vague theory is the belief of scientists that evolution
has occurred. The precise theory is the hypothesis as to how evolution
actually works. There is no known satisfactory and clearly demonstrated
precise theory of evolution. If evolution is to " stick" as a scientific theory
it must establish precise theory. In spite of the fact that as yet no precise
theory is forthcoming, the evolutionists have unbounded faith in the vague
theory. This is not science at its best..." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View
of Science and Scripture", 1967, p189)
CC>[D] Design Theory
>
>1. How did life come to be?
>[E] It evolved from non-living things.
The world "evolved" is too vague and it does not even answer the question
- merely restates it. What does "evolved" actually mean?
Also, if the Evolution question is to be symmetrical with the Design
question, then *both* should have how and why answers, or neither
should. Without symmetrical questions and answers, ie. expecting Design
to answer more than Evolution, Chris' comparison is just a strawman, on a
par with TV commercials which purport to compare their Brand X with the
opposition's Brand Y.
CC>[D] The designer did it.
Strictly speaking this should be "*An* Intelligent Designer" did it. The
basic ID theory makes no claim that any particular Designer did it. Just that
living things really are intelligently designed.
A *Christian* theory of Intelligent Design can build on the basic ID theory,
integrating its insights into the already existing Christian doctrine of
General Revelation, as part of Christian apologetics.
CC>How, we don't know.
See above. "How" is not strictly essential to establishing the fact of
Intelligent Design. Evolutionists themselves are always saying that
evolution is a fact, even if they don't know how it happened:
"While evolution is a fact, how it occurs will always be the subject of
debate." (Price B., "The Creation Science Controversy", 1990, p8).
"The process of evolution is a fact. It occurs....On the other hand, how
evolution occurs is a complex matter subject to theory." (Wilson E.O., et.
al., "Life on Earth", 1975, p769).
"And there is also the mystery of how and why evolution takes place at
all...Evolution is a fact, like digestion...Nor is it known just why evolution
occurs, or exactly what guides its steps." (Howells W., "Mankind So Far",
1944, in Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1967,
p189).
Nevertheless, there is no reason why ID theory, when the fact of Intelligent
Design is better established, could not as a research program build on that
fact to answer "how" questions.
CC>Why, we also don't know.
The question was "*How* did life come to be?" not *Why* did life come
to be!
"Why" questions are not essential to the basic ID theory. But ID theory
could at least in principle provide some broad answers to the "Why"
question, because it posits an Intelligent Designer external to the universe,
and "Why" questions are always external. For example, the answer to the
question "Why is the kettle boiling?" has a scientific answer based on the
energy of the molecules of the water in it. But the external answer is
because a human intelligent agent wanted to make a cup of tea.
Indeed, in this ID theory is superior in potential explanatory power to
Evolution. Because materialistic-naturalistic Evolution denies there is
anything external to the cosmos, it cannot, even in principle, answer the
"Why" question.
CC>How does complexity come about?
>Complexity increases by variations, some of which themselves
produce even more-complex variations.
This is too vague. Complexity could apply only to oscillating variations of
the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands. Is Chris claiming that *all*
the complexity of life, over the last 3.8 billion years, came *only* by
"variations, some of which themselves produce even more complex
variations"? That's OK, but he should then acknowledge that it is
controversial even among evolutionists:
"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes
to the most profound structural transitions in the history of life: by a long
series of insensibly graded intermediate steps, birds are linked to reptiles,
fish with jaws to their jawless ancestors. Macroevolution (major structural
transition) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in bottles) extended.
If black moths can displace white moths in a century, then reptiles can
become birds in a few million years by the smooth and sequential
summation of countless changes. The shift of gene frequencies in local
populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes - or so the
current orthodoxy states....The fossil record with its abrupt transitions
offers no support for gradual change...Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin
forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory." (Gould S.J., "The
Return of the Hopeful Monster", in "The Panda's Thumb", 1990, p156)
CC>Complex living organisms are created from scratch by the designer.
This contradicts what Chris has just said of the ID position: "The designer
did it. How, we don't know." Now Chris saying that IDers *do* know
how, ie. the designer "created from scratch"!
Moreover, it is a straw man. Chris is confusing YEC with ID theory. Many,
if not most IDers are not YECs. Johnson is an OEC and Mike Behe even
believes in common descent (as I do):
"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic
questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning
Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As
commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only
about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very
popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the
billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of
common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly
convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box", 1996, pp5-6).
ID theory does not require that "complex living organisms are created from
scratch by the designer". All that the basic ID theory states is that it was
created by the designer. The designer can use both natural and supernatural
means, and can create over time or instantaneously:
"The third reason why Miller's argument misses the mark is actually quite
understandable. It arises from the confusion of two separate ideas-the
theory that life was intelligently designed and the theory that the earth is
young. Because religious groups who strongly advocate both ideas have
been in the headlines over the past several decades, much of the public
thinks that the two ideas are necessarily linked. Implicit in Ken Miller's
argument about pseudogenes, and absolutely required for his conclusions,
is the idea that the designer had to have made life recently. That is not a
part of intelligent-design theory. The conclusion that some features of life
were designed can be made in the absence of knowledge about when the
designing took place. A child who looks at the faces on Mt. Rushmore
immediately knows that they were designed but might have no idea of their
history; for all she knows, the faces might have been designed the day
before she got there, or might have been there since the beginning of time.
An art museum might display a statue of a bronze cat purportedly made in
Egypt thousands of years ago-until the statue is examined by
technologically advanced methods and shown to be a modern forgery. In
either case, though, the bronze cat was certainly designed by an intelligent
agent." (Behe M.J., 1996, p227).
CC>What is the origin of new organisms?
>[E] New organisms evolve from prior similar organisms.
This is not necessarily explaining "the *origin* of new organisms". It could
be only explaining the *variation* in organisms.
And it does not uniquely distinguish Evolution from ID. An Intelligent
Designer could create new organisms by modifying existing ones, either by
natural means, or supernaturally, or both:
"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it
so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of
divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that
theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural
processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged
those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events.
Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject
essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the
emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and
deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key
theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some
common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is
just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch D.L., "The
Battle of Beginnings", 1996, pp187-188).
CC>[D] They are introduced as the designer sees fit.
See above. Being "introduced as the designer sees fit" does not preclude
him bringing into being "new organisms" by modifying (naturally or
supernaturally) "prior similar organisms".
CC>Why is the history of the occurrence of new species and new
organisms is the way it is?
>[E] It is this way because of the dynamics and constraints inherent in the
type of evolution occurring.
This is so vague it is meaningless. What *are* these "dynamics and
constraints" and what *are* these different "types of evolution"?
And it does not uniquely distinguish Evolution from ID. An Intelligent
Designer could have designed "the dynamics and constraints" of living
organisms, and used these in bringing into being new designs.
>[D] They are introduced according to whatever unknown schedule the
>designer has in his mind.
See above. New designs being "introduced according to whatever
unknown schedule the designer has in his mind" does not preclude their
being in accord with "the dynamics and constraints inherent" in living
organisms.
And Evolution has just as much an "unknown schedule". Evolution makes
no predictions in advance when a new design will appear. Mayr admits that
"The theory of natural selection can describe and explain phenomena with
considerable precision but it cannot make reliable predictions." (Mayr E.,
"Cause and effect in biology", Science, Vol. 134, 1961, 1504, in Macbeth
N., "Darwin Retried", 1971, 103)
CC>Is the theory predictive?
>[E] Yes; scientists and technologists routinely successfully use
>evolutionary theory to predict observations, observations that would
>otherwise be surprising, unpredictable.
See above. Mayr is one of the world's leading evolutionists, and he admits
that Darwinian evolutionary theory "cannot make reliable predictions".
In any event, since all the major changes in evolution have long since
ceased with the last Phyla over 439 mya, the last Class over 145 mya, and
the last Order over 35 mya, and since then it is only been speciation, it is
not surprising that "scientists... successfully use evolutionary theory to
predict observations":
"From the facts already discussed, one notices that the "maneuvering
space" of evolution has never stopped decreasing. The genesis of the phyla
stopped in the Ordovician [510-439 mya]*; of the classes, in the Jurassic
[208-145.6 mya]; of the orders, in the Paleocene-Eocene [65-35.4 mya].
After the Eocene, the evolutionary "sap" still flowed through a few orders,
since mammals and birds continued to specialize in various directions and
invaded all the terrestrial and marine biotopes previously occupied by
reptiles. longer affected the structural plan but only involved details.* The
only form which evolution took was speciation: in insects since the
Oligocene [35.4-23.3 mya], in mollusks since the Miocene [23.3-5.2 mya],
in birds and simians since the Pliocene [5.2-1.64 mya], and in some glirines
and hominids since the Holocene [0.01-0 mya]; Homo sapiens, the last in
line, is probably 100,000 years old. Evolution has not only slowed down,
but with the aging of the biosphere, it has also decreased in scope and in
extent. We are certain that it does not operate today as it did in the remote
past. Something has changed. It is of the utmost importance to determine
what has changed; this should shed light upon the internal mechanisms of
the phenomena. The structural plans no longer undergo complete
reorganization; novelties are no longer plentiful. Evolution, after its last
enormous effort to form the mammalian orders and man, seems to be out
of breath and drowsing off. I find this metaphor a good description of the
present state of evolutionary phenomena." * from Harland W.B., et. al., "A
Geologic Time Scale 1989", 1990, p10) (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms", 1977, pp70-71).
It would be like claiming success in predicting the winners in last
Saturday's horse races!
A better test of evolutionary theory's predictive power is to ask what
would happen if all life was wiped out on Earth except bacteria. All
Dawkins could predict was that there would only *probably* get plants and
animals and there *might* be flight and sight:
"RD: Yes. It is not in my view sensible to invoke fundamental laws of
physical improvement for the biological improvement of complexity or
running speed or anything else. If you wiped our life and started again-no,
you would not get homo sapiens. I tell you what you would get, you would
probably get a great diversity of living form . You'd probably get plants,
animals, you'd probably get parasites, you'd probably get predators, you'd
probably get large predators, small predators. You might well get flight,
you might well get sight. There are all sorts of things that you can guess
that you might get. You would certainly not get a re-run of what we've
got." (Dawkins R., in McKew M., "The Origin of the Universe", Interview
with Richard Dawkins & Paul Davies, "Lateline", Australian Broadcasting
Commission, 19 June 1996, in Australian Rationalist, No. 41, Spring 1996,
pp72-73).
Note also that evolutionary theory could not predict the emergence of
mankind!
CC>No; since we don't know what the designer is thinking or planning,
>designer theory as such can make no significant scientific observational
>predictions that are as definite as those of evolution.
See above. We don't know what `the blind watchmaker' is thinking either.
Popper points out that Darwinism cannot even predict if we find life on a
planet what form it would take, whether there were "three species... only
one species (or none)":
"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical,
and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable.
One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we
find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play
and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism,
however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on
Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit
similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no
means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the
many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we
shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism
does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really
explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable
conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what
favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms
will emerge." (Popper K., "Unended Quest", 1982, p171)
CC>Does it provide a means of integrating, explaining, and organizing
>the facts?
>[E] Yes, it does this for a vast variety of facts, and it fits these facts into
>our general scheme of scientific knowledge, including our knowledge of
>chemistry, biology, medicine, genetics, geology, geography, computer
>science, mathematics, physics, psychology, and history.
Chris has no way of knowing whether ID theory fits the facts
better than Evolution, because materialistic-naturalistic science
rejects ID out of hand, without giving it a fair hearing.
ID theorists only ask for a fair comparison and we are confident that ID
theory would fit more of the facts better:
"Why believe that there is a God at all? My answer is that to suppose that
there is a God explains why there is a world at all; why there are the
scientific laws there are; why animals and then human beings have evolved;
why humans have the opportunity to mould their characters and those of
their fellow humans for good or ill and to change the environment in which
we live; why we have the well-authenticated account of Christ's life, death
and resurrection; why throughout the centuries men have had the apparent
experience of being in touch with and guided by God; and so much else. In
fact, the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of
our experience, and it does so better than any other explanation which can
be put forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true."
(Swinburne R.G., "The Justification of Theism," Truth: An International,
Inter-Disciplinary Journal of Christian Thought, Volume 3, 1991.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html)
CC>[D] No. It has no more explanatory power than a "Just So" story.
That's ironic! The term "just-so" story in fact was AFAIK first applied by
Gould to Neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory:
"These tales, in the "just-so story" tradition of evolutionary natural history,
do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases,
wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds may yet
save it, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal
much to me." Gould S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster", in "The
Panda's Thumb", 1990, p158)
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"*Nor does any of the above depend upon the theories of Charles Darwin,
with which evolution is popularly associated. The opposite is true. More
recent scientific insights indicate that neo-Darwinism is at best a partial
explanation of how biological evolution occurs. The demise of Darwinian
theory as a *full* explanation in no way alters the firm consensus of science
that the universe has evolved.." (Price B., "The Creation Science
Controversy", Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8. Emphasis in
original.)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------