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

Dear Murray:

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I appreciate your response to Craig's
and Denton's claim that "we ought to see millions of transitional forms
if the neo-Darwinian paradigm were true." Thanks for the reference to
Darwin's letter.

Regarding Craig's statement that "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," I
don't know what Craig means, exactly.

If by the neo-Darwinian paradigm he means common ancestry resulting from
only random mutation and natural selection, then he's leaving out some
things that most biologists today would consider part of the
"neo-Darwinian paradigm."

Parts of the paradigm such as sexual selection, gene-level selection,
genetic drift, group selection, horizontal gene transfer, intracellular
symbiosis, epigenetic phenomena, etc. are less settled than random
mutation and organism-level natural selection. Darwin had no way to
anticipate or imagine some of it, given the data available when he
lived. But to construe progress made since Darwin as somehow undermining
the "neo-Darwinian paradigm" is incorrect, I think.

If Craig is defining the paradigm narrowly, to strictly mean only random
mutation and natural selection, then the fact that random mutation and
natural selection alone cannot explain everything about the phylogeny of
living things is old news.

If he's defining the paradigm broadly to mean everything except
intelligent design theory, then I simply disagree with his conclusion
that the paradigm lacks scientific explanatory power.

Maybe all he really means is that the paradigm lacks the power to answer
metaphysical questions. If so, he's right.

But, that's not how it comes across to me. He seems to be saying that
the scientific theory of evolution is woefully unsupported by evidence
relative to its high degree of acceptance among scientists.

Cheers!

Chuck
------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:33:34 +1100
From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Subject: 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.

Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Hixson-Lied Room 438
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
Phone: 402-280-2154
Fax: 402-280-5595
e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
http://groups.creighton.edu/premedsociety/
 
Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
http://nrcse.creighton.edu
 
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 11 11:30:54 2008