Gould/was My Daughter is a YEC

From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 13:02:01 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Ignorant antievolutionists"

    >In my copy of Origin of Species, natural selection was only one part
    >of Darwin's thesis. The other part was that changes ("descent with
    >modification") took place gradually over long periods of time. (It
    >is this that introduces the notion of "randomness" in evolution).<

    Actually, the randomness (in the senses of probabilistic behavior and
    of humanly unpredictable events) come from both natural selection and
    descent with modification. Natural selection introduces
    unpredictability because the environments can vary unpredictably (at
    least beyond the capability of most organisms to predict).
    Variations include climate change, catastrophes (meteors, volcanos,
    etc.), and the evolution of other organisms. The modification in
    descent with modification introduces unpredictability because the
    occurence of mutations is probabilistic. The interaction between the
    two (what mutation happens to interact with what environment) is thus
    highly unpredictable without omniscience.

    >Basically, I can easily believe Gould's contention that random
    >changes tend (in many situations) to be wiped out by natural
    >selection and it is the change in the environment that causes an
    >evolutionary change to be favored -- not billions of years of a
    >"random walk".<

    Gould claimed that the vagaries of natural selection made things
    random. In fact, his (over IMO)emphasis on the randomness of the
    course of evolution led to disagreements with several other workers.
    Gould's claims about the extreme variation seen in the Cambrian
    explosion appear to be overestimates; ironically, they also appear to
    be a major basis for the claims by ID and YEC advocates that the
    Cambrian explosion is an example of miraculous creation.

    >If there is an elegant way in which God can cause a given outcome it
    >could well be something as basic as this: Man is not an accident;
    >he is a natural and inevitable result of the environmental
    >conditions on this planet as they developed with time. The
    >environment and physical laws overrule the randomness,
    just as physical laws overpower randomness in other scientific fields.<

    Certainly from Genesis we can see that the creation of mankind was
    God's intention and thus inevitable. Chaotic (in the mathematical
    sense, i.e. deterministic but extremely sensitive to initial
    conditions) aspects of the environment and evolution are compatible
    with the idea that God set things up just right so that we would
    evolve. However, their mathematical intractability probably makes it
    impossible to distinguish scientifically between such a model (closer
    to the robust formational approach)and a model of God frequently
    causing one of multiple possibilities to occur (sort of intermediate,
    if these possibilities are all in accord with natural law) or even
    subtle miraculous tweaking to bring about a result (an ID model).

         Dr. David Campbell
         Old Seashells
         University of Alabama
         Biodiversity & Systematics
         Dept. Biological Sciences
         Box 870345
         Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
         bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
    Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
    Droitgate Spa



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 22:17:22 EDT