From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 20:01:19 EDT
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:32:43 -0400
Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In a discussion of chance in evolution talkorigins says:
>
>"Gould has written that 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. This is because the
> number of contingent causes (asteroids hitting the earth,
>continental
>drift, cosmic radiation, the likelihood of significant individuals
>mating and
>producing progeny, etc) are so high that it is unlikely they would
>occur
> again in the same sequence, or even occur at all. If an
>asteroid
>hadn't hit
>the Yucˇtan Peninsula 65 million years ago, for example, mammals
>probably would
>never have diversified, as they didn't in the 100 million years
> before that."
>
>Somebody like Johnson (or somebody like me) would not look upon this
>as
>religiously neutral. What is your view?
>
>Walt
Three thoughts, here.
First, did you do as the essay states at the very beginning
and read Loren Haarsma's essay on Chance from a Theistic
Perspective? This FAQ was specifically written to be read
in conjunction with Haarsma's FAQ and it quite clearly states
so. Why are you hammering on this and omitting the fact that
there is a companion essay? Frankly, this appears to be
cherrypicking to find objectionable extracts in order to
bolster an a priori commitment to Johnson's view (that
evolution is (or evolutionists are) inherently anti-
theistic).
Second, this is a fair summary of Gould's views on contingency.
This is best understood as almost polemics against hyper-
selective accounts of evolution. The idea is that selection,
drift, etc are occuring simultaneously and contingency also plays
a role. That is - there are unpredictable historical factors
- from a strictly naturalistic point of view. It is precisely
Gould's views on contingency that cause some lay atheists to
accuse Gould of "giving comfort to the enemy" in the sense of
the possibility of _insert God here, in this one-time historical
event_. In this sense, the quote is saying, not that God is
not a factor, but that the "tape" does not follow a deterministic
pattern. I am well aware you will reject evolution as a science
because it is not deterministic.
Third, in the context of a belief that God is in control of
history, of *course* rewinding the tape and replaying it will
certainly achieve the same result, if God so wishes.
>
>
>--
>===================================
>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 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 20:01:34 EDT