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

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for this very helpful reply which makes your hesitancy in respects of Craig's piece quite understandable.

I can see now the problem with Craig's statement you cite in the second paragraph of your post (i.e. regarding RM + NS not having explanatory power).

In particular, I see that Craig misses the point that neo-Darwinism DOESN'T actually ascribe all that much explanatory power to RM+NS at all. And that neo-Darwinism introduces a number of additional considerations not least because the limitations of RM+NS are well understood.

So one might allow that Craig is RIGHT that RM+NS lacks explanatory power BUT only so long as one recognizes that because neo-Darwinism is broader than just RM+NS, Craig is WRONG to object to neo-Darwinism on the basis of the limitations of a sub-set of its explanatory mechanisms.

I can certainly see why you'd describe this as a mishandling of biology on Craig's part.

Indeed, he's really constructing, and arguing against, a straw-man, and one would have hoped that a philosopher of Craig's stature would be more careful.

But I guess we all pull our pants on one leg at a time...

Thanks for the education!
Murray

Austerberry, Charles wrote:
> 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

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 13:13:30 2008