W.L.C. "mishandling" biology (was Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008)

Hi Chuck,

You mention that you think Craig mishandles biology and I'm taking it that this the remarks to which you respond "hmm" are the specific points at issue?

Whether that's so or not, I'd offer a couple of observations in response to the remarks in question;

Craig's first remark which you "queried":
> "Michael Denton's point that we ought to see millions of transitional
> forms if the neo-Darwinian paradigm were true is hardly out of date and
> remains a pressing problem."
>
> Hmmm ...

I actually think this is a very tendentious argument on Craig's part - up there with the idea that the sudden appearance of the Cambrian phyla is a problem for evolution.

It all assumes, of course, that given evolutionary theory then we would expect to be able to fully delineate the ancestry of at least a good many species on the basis of the fossil record. But on what we know of the process of fossilization this is highly questionable.

Strongly related is a remark of Darwin's I spotted whilst browsing some of Darwin's letters at the Darwin Correspondence Project <http://tinyurl.com/5ugaly> - and apart from never before having realized just how widely informed Darwin was as a biologist - I discovered this tantalizing remark of relevance in the present context;

"It seems to me almost like those naturalists who declare they will never believe that one species turns into another till they see every stage in process." <http://tinyurl.com/59zylt>

Now, in the letter in question Darwin doesn't develop this thought at any length, but it suggests that Darwin didn't consider objections of the sort Craig makes here particularly problematic. This in itself demonstrates nothing, of course, but it indicates that Darwin seems to have been very aware of the point and it would be very interesting to probe his views further.

The bottom line, in my view, is that such objections as Craig raises here are quite uncompelling unless one at the same time engages with the explanations of those gaps offered by biology itself.

Again, you wrote (citing Craig in the first instance);
> "I haven't seen any evidence that the hypothesis of random mutation and
> natural selection has the sort of explanatory power which the
> neo-Darwinian paradigm attributes to it."
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> I wonder exactly what Craig means by "the neo-Darwinian paradigm," and I
> wonder where he's looked for evidence concerning random mutations and
> natural selection (not to mention genetic drift, etc.).

Does Craig not define his understanding of neo-Darwinism in the piece in question? He writes;

"The neo-Darwinian paradigm is a synthesis of two overarching theses: the Thesis of Common Ancestry and the Thesis of Random Mutation and Natural Selection as the means of evolutionary development."

Now, I allow that I may simply be mishandling biology as badly as Craig, but I had been lead to believe that this is at least close to how neo-Darwinism is understood. I was also lead to believe that neo-Darwinism as so understood is, indeed, problematic and that biologists are seeking quite substantial revision of this understanding.

So as a quite genuine question from one seeking greater insight: am I in error as to (1) the understanding of neo-Darwinism, and (2) the inadequacy of neo-Darwinism as a comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms of biological evolution?

Look forward to your reply,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 10 19:34:13 2008