David says,
>>> no scientists (including yeCs) disagree with micro-E;
>
>Except when antievolutionists do disagree with it in a general attempt
>to slander evolution (e.g., the ill-founded attacks on the peppered
>moth).
Yes, I've never understood how "moths as icons" (as in the book by
Jonathan Wells) weakens E, since I think there is no doubt that this COULD
happen by micro-E.
>in the usage of young earth and intelligent design advocates,
>"microevolution" is evolution I accept and "macroevolution" is evolution I
>reject. Not only is this not very useful nor objectively testable, but
>also it is conducive to the confusion of vastly different concepts (e.g.,
>the frequent invocation of Behe as proof that species can't evolve).
Yes, there is some sloppiness.
But a micro-macro continuum doesn't require "slippery slope" denials
about the utility of a micr-macro distinction.
For example, cold and hot are a continuum, but for human physiology it's
useful to know that 0 celsius is cold and 100 celsius is hot, even though
"drawing THE line" isn't an exact process and will vary from one
physiological situation to another.
In part, this is my rant against slippery slope arguments, which are a
personal pet peeve. But a practical scientific question is the extent to
which various aspects of an extrapolation from micro-E to macro-E are
supported by scientific evidence-and-logic. Showing that SOME aspects are
supported doesn't provide evidence that ALL aspects are supported. Each
extrapolation should be evaluated based on its support.
>Young earth advocates sometimes... but sometimes...
William Grassie wrote an essay about the "big tent" of ID being an
intellectual weakness for them, and I agree. What you're saying is
relevant for some ID-arguments (and proponents) but not others. For
example, ID is a big tent so what you're saying is relevant, even though
for many questioners (like me or Behe) it doesn't apply.
>>> But are there no reasons -- none at all? -- to wonder about Total
>>> Macro-E?
>
>Two issues:
>1) does Total Macro-E involve the philosophical claim of no divine
>involvement, or does it include the option that God was sovereign over
>a process that fully obeyed natural laws, with no intervention-style
>action?
No and yes, as clarified by Terry and in my response to Allan.
>2) does wondering about it require positive evidence of an
>intervention-style gap, or just the existence of things that are
>unexplained, or just a sense that there might be something else despite
>apparently good explanations?
All are reasons for scientific questions, but a claim that "in this
particular situation, nature was not fully gifted, but required some
non-natural intervention" would require "positive evidence" of the type
Jack Collins describes in his PSCF paper (March 2003) about miracles,
design, and gaps, about the difference between a knowledge-gap and
nature-gap. Such a claim would require showing -- not with the certainty
of proof, but beyond a reasonable doubt -- that a nature-gap existed during
formative history.
Craig
Received on Sun Jul 31 16:22:07 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 31 2005 - 16:22:16 EDT