From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 04:06:37 EDT
Walter Hicks wrote:
"That is the basic issue raised by Johnson ===> namely, that he doesn't think that "natural mechanisms" are at work. One does not address his concerns or arguments by saying that this is "the best natural mechanisms we know of". It can only be addressed by making predictions and demonstrating that they work and that those alone are sufficient to demonstrate that evolution of species can happen.
"I believe from all of the avoidance I see, that one cannot do the above and, therefore, there is no valid theory for the evolution of species."
Evolution theory makes lots of predictions, and many have been demonstrated to "work." Among the more obvious (to me) are those tied in with historical geology. For example, evolution predicts that fossils of life forms that existed only in a given time interval will appear only in rocks of that time interval, or possibly in later rocks if formations have been reworked. They will not be found in older rocks. These predictions are of great practical importance because they allow paleontologists to date rocks by studying their fossils.
As for the second part, to show that proposed mechanisms alone (assuming that is your meaning) "are sufficient to demonstrate that evolution of species can happen," is a tall order partly because of the largely historical nature of evolution and its slow pace. This is a kind of demand we don't make of other theories. For example, the driving mechanisms of plate tectonics are poorly understood, but people accept the theory because there's much supporting evidence. As I've tried to point out before, no theory is complete; scientists as a rule migrate towards the best available theory. Ptolemy's geocentricity is a valid theory; it's just not widely accepted. So the theory of evolution is a valid theory, but you don't like it because its mechanisms are not falsifiable. You're welcome not to like it, but as a scientific theory it is one of the most elegant of all, because it embraces so much with so few principles.
I agree with Johnson to the degree that I don't believe natural mechanisms tell the whole story. I believe that God actively intervened in evolutionary processes, because I think nature on its own doesn't have what it takes to make the kinds of changes we observe. However, I know of no way to substantiate this belief, and I'm not sure it's even possible. Proponents of ID are trying.
From what you've written I deduce that what you don't like about the theory of evolution is that it presents evolution as a strictly natural process, and no one has ever demonstrated that nature is competent enough to do the job. If my deduction is on track, you'd be largely correct; but that still should not prevent you from admiring the theory for the beautiful thing it is. I take it with a grain of salt, but I still admire it.
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 04:03:52 EDT