Re: Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:27:55 -0500 bivalve
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> writes:
> > 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.<
>
> It's impossible to prove that God did not create everything exactly
> as it appears last Tuesday. One argument against this and other
> special creation arguments of this sort is ironically akin to
> Dembski's specified complexity argument. Special creation can
> explain anything equally well. Evolution makes specific predictions
> about patterns to expect in organisms. We see those patterns.
> Another example of this is the comparison of relativity and
> Newtonian physics in explaining Mercury's orbit. If you invoke
> undiscovered extra mass lurking somewhere, you can explain any orbit
> using Newtonian physics, but relativity predicts the observed
> pattern without any hidden extra planet.
>
> The admission that Galapagos finches come from a common ancestor
> points to another flaw of this sort of argument. The better
> documented a given transition is, the smaller the individual steps
> will be. The reptile to mammal transition is a good example of one
> that many antievolutionists are unwilling to accept, yet the changes
> can be traced easily.
>
> The molecular patterns include many non-functional features, old
> virus sequences tht have been incorporated into the genome, etc. The
> fact that morphologically similar but unrelated forms also have
> dissimilar DNA seems a problem for the "similar thoughts" argument.
> Why should hippos and whales be more similar in DNA than hippos and
> cows? Why don't whales have fish-like DNA, whereas sea cows are
> more similar to elephants and hyraxes?
>
>
> Dr. David Campbell

There is also the matter brought up in the quotation some days back from
Shedd: an omnipotent deity will produce the whole instantaneously, though
it may unfold, but not in 6 24-hour days. I would add that an omniscient
deity will know many ways to get results, and so not merely tinker with
similar genetic sequences. Also, the patterns would not include any
quiescent or redundant sequences, and introns would have a clear
function. But there is no remedy for invincible ignorance. Indeed, I
rather expect that, when some creationists get to heaven and the history
of the universe is presented to them, they'll say, "I don't believe it."

I recall the story of the old farmer from a distant run who came down to
town the first time in his life. A circus was in town, and he watched the
parade. He knew about painters, but there were horses with stripes and
cats that were far too big with ruffs or stripes or rosettes. Then there
was a big critter with a tail on each end. Then came a critter with its
head 15 feet in the air. At this the old guy said, "It's a lie," and
stalked off home.

If one adds to this problem that believing in giraffes will compromise
your eternal destiny, where would you stand? You may have to get hold of
some of them before they are old enough to go to Sunday school.
Dave
Received on Tue Jan 4 16:20:46 2005