From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 13:38:32 EDT
I had written:
> >
> > I still think we are confusing things by using the one word "evolution"
in
> > two radically different senses. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I think
we
> > should separate the argument in two:
> >
> > 1) Evolution of Elements though natural laws
> > 2) Evolution of Life
> >
> > We have plenty of laws to understand the mechanism of #1, but little for
the
> > mechanism of #2. I really think the arguments should be separated.
>
To which Howard responded:
> I don't object to this, but in my judgment the distinction you call for is
> based not on the need, or lack of need, for supernatural intervention, but
> rather on our ability to give detailed descriptions or predictions
regarding
> the two processes. Biology deals with far more complicated and less
> predictable systems than does physics.
>
My point is that the question of "the need, or lack of need, for
supernatural intervention" can't be frutfully discussed as long as we were
confusing the meaning of evolution in points #1 and #2 above. Thats why I
wanted to separate the argument. Let me clarify once more:
1) Evolution of Elements refers to the change over time generated by the
time evolution operator of QM
2) Evolution of Life refers to Darwinian evolution through mutation and
natural selection (or some variation thereof).
It is true that under RFEP these two are strictly equivalent, but that is
NOT the issue at hand. If we argue *from* the equivalence, we will be
assuming the validity of RFEP and there's nothing left to discuss. The
meaning of the word "evolution" is radically different in the two points if
RFEP is not true. To assert their equivalence at this stage of argument is
simply a way to sneak the conclusion in the back door.
Since you concurred in a previous post that the IDers generally use
fine-tuning + natural processes to explain the appearance of the elements,
and ID to explain certain aspects of the development of Life, Glen's
original post conflating points #1 and #2 should now be recognized as
invalid, correct? I refer to post
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0459.html where Glen wrote:
>In other words, why is evolution ok for inanimate matter but bad for living
>systems? This seems highly inconsistent. It is picking and choosing
>evolution where it is convenient but rejecting it where it is inconvenient.
>That is what is wrong with the ID approach.
By separating the argument, we are able to see that IDers are not "picking
and choosing" as Glen asserted.
In service of Christ the Chosen One,
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 13:35:26 EDT