Re: Stereotypes and reputations

    George says, about common descent,

>(3) is closest to what informed people mean when they speak about a
>scientific theory of evolution.
>(But the qualification "full" is ambiguous. Does it mean that all living
>things have descended from a single common ancestor? Darwin didn't
>require that, referring in the closing paragraph of the Origin to "life
>... having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms (N.B.)
>or into one".)

    You agree that we shouldn't "freeze" E-ideas in the mind of Darwin and
in his time -- unfortunately ID people often speak of "Darwinism" rather
than "neo-Darwinian science" (which can be discussed on its own, or in
relationship to commonly associated interpretations and philosophies) --
but it is important to consider the ideas of current scientists &
educators. A few of them are at the research frontier (they have more
knowledge) and many are in the wider community (they have more influence).
It's my impression that "the many" usually consider E to be FULL common
descent (YECs believe in partial common descent from "kinds") but what do
the experts think?

    Since we'll refer to them, here are my definitions:
>(1) a micro-E change in the gene pool of a population,
>(2) evolutionary fossil progressions in geological contexts,
>(3) full common descent among biological organisms,
>(4) totally natural development (which I'll call Total Macro-E) of all
>biological complexity.

    George says,
>People have known about the consequences of (1) - variations within
>species - for millennia without considering it to be "evolution" in
>anything like the modern sense.

   Unfortunately, evidence for micro-E is often given as evidence for
"evolution". This is sloppy logic, but of course it doesn't falsify other
evidence for other types of evolution. And it does illustrate the basic
mechanism that, when extrapolated, is the basis for claiming a Total
Macro-E development of everything.

>(4) - if I'm understanding what you mean by "totally natural" - is a
>philosophical interpretation of (3).

   Here, Terry is correct. Thanks for the clarification:

>Craig means that "totally natural development" means that only God's
>ordinary means of governing the universe are at work, i.e. no miraculous
>interventions. Thus #4 is still a possible view for a Christian holding
>to a full-blown evolutionary creation view.

   Yes, when I say "totally natural" that's exactly what I mean: no more,
no less. And I consider #4 (Total Macro-E) to be the claim for any
E-Creation view, with a fully gifted creation.
   Basically, questioning 4 is questioning whether God did create nature to
be "fully gifted" so it would be able to self-assemble by natural process
-- which we (as a community of Christian scientists) should agree was
designed and sustained by God (here we agree unanimously) and (with a
variation of views) was perhaps guided by God.
   In my other post Friday, responding to Allan, I agreed with him in
emphasizing the importance of believing (and explicitly saying) that
"natural" doesn't mean "without God."

>A great deal of the confusion here, some a result of ignorance and some
>deliberate - comes from the insistence of many anti-evolutionists and many
>atheists that (3) implies (4). That is, of course, false.

   As explained above, #4 is a claim about history (what happened) rather
than its interpretation.
   We agree that a totally naturalistic formative history (allowed by a
fully-gifted creation) would not require atheistic NATURISM which claims
"nature is all that exists."
   Much of my web-page is a defense of TE/EC against wrong claims by
anti-evolution Christians or anti-Christian evolutionists. For example, I
criticize a "bad argument against TE" (that assumes "if it isn't a miracle
then God didn't do it) and I explain that an atheistic interpretation of
neo-Darwinian theories (as in the NABT declaration, from 1995 to 1997, that
E is an "unsupervised" process) is not an essential part of scientific
E-theories but is a nonscientific interpretation that is rejected by TEs.

>When I say that there is no real scientific controversy about evolution
>itself I'm using the word in sense (3) - though of course that include (1)
>and (2) as well.

   Well, we agree about 123, while I (but not you?) think there are
scientific reasons to ask questions about 4. (Some proponents of ID also
question 2 or 3, in addition to 4.)
   But 4 seems to be part of the usual meaning of E. For example, Mike
Behe accepts 123 but his questions about 4 have caused major controversy in
science and strong responses by scientists, showing that 4 (Total Macro-E)
is considered beyond question, and is an important part of the E-proposal
that is being strongly defended.
   And most people (teachers, students, general public) think that claims
for "E as fact" or for "no controversy about E" means all of it, 1234.
Usually there are no 1-2-3-4 distinctions (or they are very inadequate),
there is just E.

Craig
Received on Sun Jul 31 16:22:07 2005