Please list the serious criticism of the theory of evolution.
Until I know what this serious criticism is I cannot see what the problem is
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <RDehaan237@aol.com>
To: <jdac@alphalink.com.au>; <RDehaan237@aol.com>
Cc: <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)
>
> In a message dated 4/15/01 9:06:58 PM, jdac@alphalink.com.au writes:
>
> <<However, I can't understand why you appear to be insisting in this
thread
> that
> Christians must "critique" evolutionary theories, in a way that is
> distinctive to
> a way that a Christian chemist might critique bond theories, or a
Christian
> physicist might critique as aspect quantum mechanics. Rather one would
think
> that a Christian paleontologist or evolutionary biologist would make a
> positive
> contribution to our understanding of biological formation by original
> research,
> rather than simply through a negative critique.>>
>
> Jon,
>
> Thanks for your note. I agree that original research is a necessary. My
> wish is that more of it were done outside the evolutionary paradigm on
> problems that the paradigm should be able to solve, but hasn't. For
> instance, the idea that species go through the process of aging is not
> considered a respectable area of research in paleontology, since George
> Simpson squelched the topic in mid century by calling it an absurd idea.
Yet
> there is significant evidence for it in the paleontological literature
that,
> however, is consistently cast in an exclusively evolutionary framework,
and
> thus lost. The concept of phyletic aging implies that phyletic groups go
> through a developmental process that involves the entire life cycle of the
> group and is independent of evolutionary processes. But I doubt if any
> evolutionary biologist or paleontologist would touch the topic.
>
> Phyletic development happens to be my pet anomaly. It raises doubts in my
> mind about the adequacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I would like to
> hear from others about anomalies they have regarding the theory. I'm not
> talking about shortcomings of the theories that will perhaps be resolved
in
> time. I am talking about known phenomena that the theory should be able
to
> encompass and explain, but doesn't or can't. But what I read are largely
> criticisms of those who raise questions about the theory.
>
> << I note that Sam Berry, professor of genetics at the University College
> London
> has published extensively on evolutionary ecology and made important
advances
> in
> biology in this area. As a leading Christian he has also written several
> books
> on the subject. In all the ones I have read he has severely criticized
the
> extension of evolutionary theory into theology a metaphysics. Michael
Poole,
> the
> science educator, similarly repeatedly pointed out both the validity of
> organic
> evolution as a scientific theory and the dangers of inappropriate
extension.
> He
> has publicly debated with Richard Dawkins on occasion. C.S. Lewis, though
> either
> a scientist nor a theologian, was one of the most influential Christians
of
> the
> 20th century. He recognized that the validity of organic evolution was a
> scientific question, not a theological one and also strongly attacked
> evolutionism (his poem on the subject is brilliantly funny). Donald
MacKay
> was
> another highly influential writer on the science-faith interface who
> criticized
> the misuse of evolutionary theories. How many more examples do you want?
In
> fact, I am hard pushed to think of any Christian who has defended organic
> evolution who has not also, to some degree, criticized its misuse in
support
> of
> atheistic or naturalistic metaphysics. As Tim Ikeda has also pointed out,
> there
> are quite a a number of non Christians who have also express concern over
> such a
> misuse of science. >>
>
> As you can see, the misuse of science is not my main concern. My concern
is
> that there is no longer a critical attitude toward the theory of
evolution;
> that it is placed in the same category as the established theory of
chemical
> bonding, when in fact there has been much serious criticism of the theory.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 17 2001 - 07:10:37 EDT