Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

>
> Perhaps with YEC, but many of the ID arguments I've read do not insist
> upon attacking evolution at all. On the contrary, most IDists accept
> evolution in one way or another. Behe accepts common descent and 'old'
> earth, Dembski accepts 'technological evolution' (probably among other forms
> of evolution). There are even persons who call themselves ID-evolutionists!
>

The popular form of ID is anti-evolution. Dembski and Behe have both
asserted that they would be OK with evolution as an example of design but
still insist that there are gaps in evolution, and Dembski has also claimed
that gaps in evolution or the like are important to religion.

> The fact is that 'evolution,' in the Darwinian sense of understanding it,
> is obviously, positively outdated.
>

Actually, Darwin's basic formula remains an excellent summary of
evolution-organisms vary in ways that affect their survival and
reproduction; these varying features are affected by heritable factors; and
not all organisms reproduce. As a result, there is change over time in
features. Organisms with features that are more advantageous (at the
moment) tend to predominate relative to organisms with less advantageous
features.

Beyond that, there is much debate about the exact relative roles of various
factors; relative prevalence of stability, gradual change, or rapid change;
influence of more random factors such as genetic drift or catastrophes (e.g.,
no genes prevent problems if an asteroid hits you) relative to natural
selection; degree of constraint versus flexibility. All this is details of
how evolution works.

> This is one reason my views cause so many problems for TE's. Most TE's
> defend evolution 'too far.' Of course, the discussion of 'how far is too
> far' is a valid one. But it appears to be one that TE's are reluctant to
> have.
>

Biological evolution fits the biological evidence well. Although claims
about social evolution, etc. often invoke biological evolution, they are not
inherently implied by biological evolution and require separate evaluation
(not to mention being very often wrong).
>E.g. I just typed these letters that you folks are reading *now*. They
really 'changed over time' (e.g I briefly edited them). Should it be said
that the message you are reading 'evolved' onto the screen in front of you
(into being or having become)? Doesn't this belong with philosophical or
agent-oriented language and not natural scientific language?<

It depends on what is being described. Considering the text merely as a set
of characters, this set underwent some change. Evolution typically refers
to a somewhat longer series of changes, but the example could easily be
modified to allow for that. It might be possible to determine a set of
empirical rules about the sort of changes that often occur. Such activities
could fall under natural science.

What does the message mean? Why did those particular changes occur (among
those allowed by physical law)? Those aren't natural science.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.