Re: Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale

Dawkins wrote to Terry Gray's approval:

"...If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern
organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their
genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species
are distributed among continents and islands, would still
demonstrate...that our history is evolutionary,
and that all living creatures are cousins...."

I agree that these evidences provide good corroboration for one who already believes evolution. But what are the alternatives if one doesn't? Special creation is certainly a leading alternative, and one who believes in special creation can easily dismiss several or all of these evidences: Genes and other molecules are similar in similar organisms because God happened to have closely similar thoughts as he made the closely related organisms. And, OK, the 13 species of Galapagos finches may have descended from a common ancestor, but they're all still finches; we can live with that. As for the rest, prove God didn't create it all the way it is. (We probably have to accept that Noah's flood was local.)

If a person honors the data, there is no way to dismiss variation in fossils with time. The special creationist can still argue that God created the corresponding organisms at different times, but that view has severe theological liabilities, needs lots of hand waving. In any case, a creationist who is knowledgeable and honest must take the fossil data into consideration, while the other evidences for evolution he can largely dismiss while still acknowledging that the data are valid.

Magick away the fossils, Richard, and there's a good chance I won't believe evolution myself. That would be sad.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Terry M. Gray<mailto:grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
  To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:37 PM
  Subject: Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale

  Happy New Year everyone!

  Not long ago there was a thread about empirical evidence for or
  testable predictions coming out of evolutionary theory. That which
  convinced Darwin, primarily, and the "classical" argument for
  evolution is the nested hierarchy of characteristics (well-recognized
  in the pre-Darwinian world by Linnaeus' taxonomic system) together
  with the historical progression of life forms in the fossil record.
  Molecular data comes much later, and in my mind, provides a striking
  confirmation. (See my discussion in Chapter 12 of *Perspectives on an
  Evolving Creation*.)

  What's prompted me to post this is that I'm just starting in on
  Dawkins' new book and early on found this passage which I by and
  large agree with. I'm not particularly fond of his condescending
  "beyond all sane doubt" or his seemingly obligatory jab at
  creationists, but if one were to remove those rhetorical
  distractions, I find myself in full agreement.

  Here is the passage:

  **In spite of the fascination of fossils, it is surprising how much
  we would still know about our evolutionary past without them. If
  every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern
  organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their
  genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species
  are distributed among continents and islands, would still
  demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary,
  and that all living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A
  welcome bonus, to be sure, but not an essential one. It is worth
  remembering this when creationists go on (as they tediously do) about
  'gaps' in the fossil record. The fossil record could be one big gap,
  and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelmingly strong.
  At the same time, if we had only fossils and no other evidence, the
  fact of evolution would again be overwhelmingly supported. As things
  stand, we are blessed with both.**

                           (p. 13, Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale)

  This is similar to Niles Eldredge's discussion in his book,
  *Reinventing Darwin* where he underscored the primary evidence for
  evolution being in Natural History.

  Obviously, many, even on this list, disagree with us, but I continue
  to wonder whether the disagreement is due to the fact that
  evolutionary views have been used to support an atheistic agenda (or
  stand contra to a YEC interpretation of Genesis 1).
  I read Dawkins (and Eldredge) and don't think they are merely making
  specious claims. The evidence seems overwhelming to me (a Christian
  theist who has no zeal for pushing God out the creation business). I
  have to conclude that if evolution didn't occur, then God did His
  creative work in such a way as to make us think that it did occur.
  Maybe we could find some common ground with YECs with a notion of
  "apparent common ancestry".

  If anyone wants to join me in reading Dawkins, we can dialogue on
  passages as we progress in the book.

  TG
  --
  _________________
  Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
  Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
  Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
  grayt@lamar.colostate.edu<mailto:grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/<http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/>
  phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
Received on Tue Jan 4 05:43:54 2005