Re: Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale

Don,

This argument of special creation, as you describe it, seems as though
it can't be defeated by any amount or kind of evidence. No matter what
evidence is put forth, one would simply reply with "God just created it
that way". It sort of reminds me of the hypothetical philosophical
thinking-game arguments that say everything in our world, including our
memories, was all created yesterday. If someone truly believes that, no
amount or kind of evidence is going to sway them. The
philosophical/theological view of special and apparent creation can be
held to regardless of any evidence that would imply otherwise.
 
And so I really don't get the point of trying to convince someone who
holds onto these kinds of views. If someone holds philosophical views
that are impenetrable by scientific discovery, then by definition there
is no new argument, no new data, no new interpretations, and no new
alternatives that will convince them otherwise.
 
I guess I'm wondering, Don, what is the silver bullet you are looking
for that will convince these special creationists you have mentioned?
It doesn't seem like it even could exist.
 
Regards,
Charles

 
<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
Charles W. Carrigan
Olivet Nazarene University
Dept. of Geology
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
 
 

>>> "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com> 1/4/2005 4:48:53 AM >>>

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
To: 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  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801