Reflectorites
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:28:13 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
As this is my first response to one of Bill's posts, a welcome to the Reflector
from me to him also. Maybe Bill could also tell us a bit about himself?
>SJ>"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.
BW>Neither macro evolution nor Creationism are testable.
Note the (perhaps unconscious) choice of prejudicial terms: "macro
evolution" and "Creationism", which if accepted unchallenged, would
virtually end the debate before it even got started. As Johnson points out,
the "-ism" at the end of "creation" presents it as an ideology, whereas
"evolution" (without a corresponding "-ism") is presented as a fact.
"One thing to notice right away is the title: the debate is set up as pitting
creationism (that is, an ideology) against evolution (no ism, therefore a
fact). No matter what the evidence may be, an ideology (especially a
religious ideology) can never beat a "fact" in a debate conducted under
scientific rules. Scientific materialists actually see the issue that way and so
they naturally frame the debate in those terms. I always insist that an ism be
put on both words or neither. Let the debate be between the competing
facts (creation and evolution) or the competing ideologies (creationism and
evolutionism). Better still, let it be between theism and materialism. What
was present and active in the beginning, God or matter? That frames the
question correctly and levels the playing field. (Johnson P.E., "Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds," 1997, pp124-125)
BW>Macro evolution is
>not testable because any test must span many generations.
Bill does not define what he means by "macroevolution". Literally it means
"large-scale evolution," and can simply mean "evolution above the species
level":
"Macroevolution Evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher
taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties such as new structures."
(Mayr E., "One Long Argument,", 1991, p.182)
Gould defines macroevolution as including "long-term trends, patterns of
extinction and faunal turnover":
"The strict version, with its emphasis on copious, minute, random variation
molded with excruciating but persistent slowness by natural selection, also
implied that all events of large-scale evolution (macroevolution) were the
gradual, accumulated product of innumerable steps, each a minute
adaptation to changing conditions within a local population. This
"extrapolationist" theory denied any independence to macroevolution and
interpreted all large-scale evolutionary events (origin of basic designs,
long-term trends, patterns of extinction and faunal turnover) as slowly
accumulated microevolution (the study of small-scale changes within
species)." (Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes," 1986,p.13).
and also "major structural transition":
"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. " (Gould S.J., "The Panda's Thumb," 1990,
p.156)
The only definitions of macroevolution that I am disputing may not have
been fully naturalistic are the following:
"the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties
such as new structures," the "origin of basic designs" and "major
structural transition."
Is Bill claiming that "Macro evolution" in the above senses are "not
testable"?
BW>Creationism is
>not testable because Creationist theology teaches that God stopped
>creating on the 6th day thus any test is ipso facto heretical. Micro
>evolution has been observed.
Bill here appears to be confusing "Creationist" with *young-Earth*
creationist. Old-Earth/Progressive Creationists like me don't regard the
"6th day" as a *literal* 24-hour day.
>SJ>Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety.
BW>Creationism and Darwinism purport to describe historical events. History
>is descriptive, not predictive. For example, global warming vs. comming
>ice age. Both sides use the same historical data to make opposite
>conclusions.
Darwinism does not merely "purport to describe historical events". If it is
to be science and not mere history, it must claim to derive scientific principles
from natural "historical events" by which it can explain and predict past,
present and future events.
Indeed, Darwinism claims to be able to explain natural "historical events"
even on other planets in other parts of the universe:
"However varied in detail alien forms of life may be, there will probably be
certain principles that are fundamental to all life, everywhere. I suggest that
prominent among these will be the principles of Darwinism. Darwin's
theory of evolution by natural selection is more than a local theory to
account for the existence and form of life on Earth. It is probably the only
theory that can adequately account for the phenomena that we associate
with life. My concern is not with the details of other planets. I shall not
speculate about alien biochemistries based on silicon chains, or alien
neurophysiologies based on silicon chips. The universal perspective is my
way of dramatizing the importance of Darwinism...This essay should,
therefore, be seen firstly as an argument for the general importance of
Darwin's theory of natural selection..."(Dawkins R., "Universal
Darwinism," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?," 1996, p.202)
>SJ>PD: No, of course not. But the question is would we expect to find any
>>intelligent life and I think most biologists would say no.
BW>Seems to me that most Creationists equate evolution with social
>Darwinism.
>There is no evidence that abstract intelligence makes for biological
>fitness. Just the opposite.
Bill does not disagree with what I said, but seems to be trying to
change the subject. My point was that even the strongest naturalistic
theory of the build up of biological design (i.e. Neo-Darwinism), does
not predict (and therefore cannot claim to explain) the origin of humans.
As I have previously posted, even Ernst Mayr, arguably the greatest living
Darwinist, admits that that the origin of humans was "a miracle".
But a general theory of Progressive Mediate Creation (PCM) *can* explain
the origin of human beings (and all the other things that naturalistic evolution
cannot explain), so it is a superior general scientific theory.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sixthly, he would be surprised to hear, that the mechanism of the watch
was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to think so:"
(Paley W., "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature,"
[1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston TX, 1972, reprint, p.5)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 14 2000 - 17:36:00 EDT