Re: The El Tajon situation [was Judge Jones sided]

Thanks, Keith (and all). How would you distinguish divine guidance
generally from discontinuity? At one pole perhaps you have God inserting
fully formed organisms into the tree of life, at the other pole you have God
ensuring that just the right set conditions, mutations, and interactions
occur so that life in all its complexity arises as it has. In either case,
isn't there an insertion of divine agency that results in discontinuity with
what otherwise would have occurred? Is there a philosophical principle that
makes one type of discontinuity more palatable than the other, or is it just
a matter of how the proposed types of discontinuity match the observable
data?

(BTW, I ordered one of Keith's books and George I sprung the $45 bucks for
yours too, so I'm looking forward to fleshing out my understanding of these
things even more).

On 1/13/06, Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
>
> David:
>
> > However, none of these issues brings into question common descent, and
> > that is the core issue....Common descent itself is not the topic of
> > any serious debate.
> >
> > Keith (and others) -- I'm trying to get a better handle on what people
> > mean when they use various terms in discussions like this. When you
> > say "common descent," are you referring to (a) what happens (organisms
> > change over time and later organisms are related to earlier ones); or
> > (b) how it happens; or (c) both. My impression has been that there is
> > general agreement in the scientific community on (a), but that there
> > continues to be substantial debate about (b). I'm not so sure that
> > (a) is the "core issue" in arguments about design, though it can be an
> > issue; it seems to me the core issue is (b). Or am I way off base?
> > Thanks.
>
> Common descent is simply the proposition that all organisms are related
> by a process of descent with modification back in time to a common
> ancestor (not a single organism but an ancestral group of primitive
> cells). This pattern can be visualized as a many branching tree or
> bush with the trunk in the deep past. Common descent does not say
> anything about mechanism. In fact there are many proposed and
> documented evolutionary mechanisms, the relative importance of which
> are issues of intense research and discussion.
>
> But, the essence of biological evolution is common descent. It is also
> the genealogical relatedness of all living things that is the primary
> focus of attack by those who see evolution as a threat to their faith.
> This is particularly true in the area of human evolution.
>
> While there are a very few ID supporters who accept common descent
> (Behe being one), most do not. Virtually all of the public support for
> ID is from those who oppose common descent. Where individuals place
> the discontinuities in the history of life varies widely -- from two or
> three interventions (special creations), to the special creation of
> every species. ID as argued in the public square is essentially an
> argument for discontinuity in the history of life. To say that a
> particular structure or event could not have been produce by the action
> of any possible series of cause-and-effect processes is to argue for
> special creation and a break in the continuity of life's history. I am
> not here talking about divine guidance and direction of natural
> processes, which is in no conflict with an evolutionary view of life
> history.
>
> Keith
>
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Research Assistant Professor
> Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
> 785-532-2250
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>
Received on Fri Jan 13 13:49:59 2006