From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 07:48:25 EDT
Don Winterstein wrote
> 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 did not say that I personally don't like the
theory. It's the haughty attitude of it's
proponents that is irritating.
>
> 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.
>
You are closer to johnson than I am. I only argue
that his position and yours are reasonable.
>
> 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.
>
Actually, I tend to think that evolutionary
theory, once they completely work it all out, will
be correct. The reason I think this is because it
would be an elegant way for God to bring about his
intent ... but that is just a guess.
What I cannot accept are statements like Gould's:
"if we could rewind the "tape" of evolution and
replay it, the result would not be the same (Gould
1989). Among other things, humans are almost
certain not to re-evolve."
That's what comes of the 100% commitment to
naturalism.
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 07:48:51 EDT