Wendee Holtcamp wrote:
OK so my next question is: does ID necessarily conflict with DarwinianID theory per se does not necessarily conflict with Darwinian theory, whether as directed or undirected. But a major subset of ID proponents claim also that specified complex information cannot arise apart from intelligence. If the human genome (or any genome) contains specified complex information (SCI), then, in their view, undirected evolution cannot account for it. Hence the conclusion that the HGP "devastates" Darwinian evolutionary theory (where "Darwinian evolutionary theory" is defined as undirected). I think it remains to be established whether (1) SCI arises from intelligence alone and (2) that any genome contains SCI. Hence in my view, "devastate" is a bit premature.
evolution? I have been corresponding with someone recently (OEC and
ID) who says that the Human Genome Project "devastate" Darwinian
theory because Darwinianism asserts that it was undirected and that it
progressed randomly, AND it progresses from the simple to the complex.
Now I teach college biology I and generally consider that I have a
good understanding of evolutionary theory. And I don't see that
scientists' current understanding of Darwinian evolution (ie. the
synthetic theory or neo-Darwinian theory) "claims" that (1) it is
undirected (2) it progressed randomly (3) it progresses from simple to
complex.My understanding is:
(1) Some individuals have used "Darwinism" to claim that evolution is
undirected, but that it is pretty much accepted that science can never
suggest or prove that there is no God, hence saying evolution is
undirected will always be speculation, and not a part of a theory.
Wasn't ASA involved in a successful effort to remove such wording
(undirected) from some science textbooks?
Yes, at the prodding of Huston Smith and Al Plantinga, it was removed
from the official statement of the National Association of Biology Teachers
[NABT]. Their 1995 Official Statement on Teaching Evolution stated: "The
diversity of life [all life] on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised,
impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with
genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical
contingencies and changing environments." However, in the textbook Biology,
by Miller and Levine, (Prentice-Hall, 1993-2000 editions), the authors
write "evolution is without plan or purpose" and "evolution is random and
undirected" (p. 658). My experience is that Darwinism is defined as a process
directed merely by chance and natural laws (and hence undirected by intelligent
agency). Dawkins and Dennett agree. Dawkins writes, "Darwin made it possible
to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." If Darwinism requires intelligent
direction, then Dawkins couldn't make that statement.
(2) Random *mutations* have resulted in changes in the genetic code,By "directed" ID proponents mean "directed by intelligent agency". Natural selection may be directed by environmental and fitness conditions, but according to Darwinism, naturalism has no need for direction by intelligent agency. Natural laws + chance do just fine on their own. Undoubtedly God is capable of acting in a way that appears random to us. I agree. But the Darwinian claim is that chance + natural law alone (without the help of an intelligent agent) is capable of producing the needed mutations, just as chance + natural law alone is capable of explaining why I roll a '3' on the dice, even though God could have acted to make it land on '3'. If chance + natural law are capable of doing it, then one needs additional evidence to justify one's claiming divine action and thus to avoid Ockham's razor.
which when expressed changed the phenotype of an organism -- which the
environment then can act upon via natural selection. Environmental
selection is *directed* not random, but mutation is ultimately random.
Random mutation does not imply *no God* -- but (to me), is something
indistinguishable from the hand of God. Miracles in the Bible always
require faith to believe - in every case, you can always explain away
miracles as "coincidence" or "just nature" (as in the wind separating
the sea for Moses). Those with faith know God is involved.
(3) Simple to complex: this is a recurring theme in the Bible. ATo some degree the blueprint for the full grown organism is contained in the DNA. According to some ID theorists, the specified complex information (SCI) in the seed and in the mature plant remains the same (or, if anything, decreases due to mutations). Darwinism claims to get an increase in SCI for free. But according to these ID theorists, nature and entropy only destroy SCI; SCI requires intelligence as its source. However, on this ID view, it is quite possible that all the present SCI in all organisms was front-loaded into the first living organism. But that is still incompatible with the Darwinian model.
mustard seed grows to a huge "tree" or bush. One kernel dies so the
rest may live. Genesis - the universe begins from nothing and proceeds
to complex living organisms. etc etc. Not sure why this is even an
issue. Apparently ID says that "irreducible complexity" existed in the
beginning. Well, that is still entirely possible that the first "gene"
in the first living organism was indeed complex and organized. Why
does that conflict with Darwinian evolution?
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 13:47:28 EDT