Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)

On Nov 21, 2007, at 6:06 AM, John Walley wrote:

> Rich,
>
> Thanks for this clarification. This was a Eureka! moment for me.
>
> I see now that as far as the mechanism of evolution goes you don’t
> take any issues with Dawkins and “random” is the wrong term to try
> to describe any difference. This wasn’t entirely clear to me before.
>
> But it raises two more interesting questions for me:
>
> 1) If TE is in general agreement with Dawkins on the fully
> “random” component of evolution as a mechanism, then where is the
> departure with him?

For one, his "meme" hypothesis. Evolution also does a poor job of
describing altruism for non-relatives and music (in the latter case
how is something that is nowhere conserved in any other species is
completely conserved in ours?). Check out Sack's latest book,
Musicophilia, on how pervasive music is in the human brain. The
obvious point of departure is his atheism. Just because the Universe
is regular and follows "laws" does not imply that it is self-existent.

Would it be accurate to say that this difference is purely
philosophical and can not be quantified by science at all?

Yes, I would believe it would and by stating that we separate his
strongest case from his "evangelical atheism".

>
> As I mentioned above and also evidenced by the author of the
> review article below, it is not altogether intuitive to IDers and
> novice TE’s like myself to equate fully “random” processes with God
> although I will concede your scriptural reference does a great job
> of highlighting this. “Randomness” seems like a convenient and
> logical demarcation between God and naturalism and in fact that is
> the distinction Behe uses as a way to challenge the creative powers
> of evolution in “Edge”. How certain are we from the science that
> this fully “random” process of Darwinian evolution is sufficient to
> explain all the complexity of life?

We are quite certain. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. BTW, no one
including Richard Dawkins believes that evolution is fully random. It
is inaccurate to use the singular term process because evolution
incorporates a number of processes: natural selection, genetic drift,
sexual selection, horizontal gene transfer, etc. It is also inaccurate
to use the term Darwinian. Darwin didn't have a clue about modern
genetics. It is the modern evolutionary synthesis that pretty much
closed the case on evolution. The case for common descent is so strong
Michael Behe concedes it by page 5 of Darwin's Black Box. Behe
concedes even more in Edge, specifically natural selection. Where he
draws the line now is whether genetic variation is sufficient. At this
rate, in another ten years there will be no difference between Michael
Behe and standard evolutionary theory.

In other words, is the objection to Behe’s premise of an edge to the
explanatory powers of evolution rejected on scientific grounds, or
merely philosophical grounds because TE’s don’t like ID?

It's both. Behe's science is pretty poor. We have had over a decade
for him and other IDM proponents to demonstrate their hypothesis and
so far they have come up empty. I have yet to see a positive theory.
All I have seen is evolution doesn't work therefore design. You might
cite Dembski's work as a positive theory but here Randy Isaac and
myself are involved with the computer industry and we both agree that
Dembski has made a hash of information theory. When Randy ran IBM's
Watson Laboratory he interacted with some of the pre-eminent experts
in this field. Even if you say that this qualifies as a positive
theory, I don't see any tests. In the Dover trial, Behe came up with
hypothetical tests of his hypothesis but was forced to admit on the
stand that no one -- including IDM proponents -- has done them.

  Is it conceivable that Behe may be right and one day the “random”
component of evolution may no longer explain it?

Yes. In fact, I hope he is right. Being a working engineer I don't
believe that the approach currently chosen by the IDM is the most
fruitful approach on proving design, however. In order to infer
design, many times you need the designer to tell you. So, you need to
argue from the Bible to design and not the other way around.

Is it possible that one day some finely tuned epigenetic laws are
discovered that govern the genomes of life that will disprove
randomness?

That's already being argued by standard evolutionary theory -- except
for the fine tuning. As I said above, no one except the IDM argues for
completely random evolution. Random single nucleotide polymorphisms is
only one of many mechanisms -- not all of which are random -- for
variation that is non-randomly chosen from. One test for positive
selection is gene frequencies that cannot be explained by random
genetic drift. Speaking of fine tuning I believe that so-called
cosmological ID is their strongest argument. If the IDM focused on
that rather than trying to disprove evolution they would be more
successful in my opinion.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 21 10:03:18 2007