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

> 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.

Something that Pim contributed on this topic months ago that I thought was very helpful is that the term "RM" would be better replaced with "variation" due to the modern knowledge we have on all the various and different mechanisms listed above that contribute input into the selection process.

In fact it is this narrow RM definition that Behe also sets up as a strawman and attacks in "Edge" and although WLC may get a pass for this, Behe should know better. After initially finding "Edge" very convincing and defending it on this list repeatedly I finally came around to see this as being the flaw of that argument. Evolution doesn't work solely by single point mutations even if that was all Darwin could conceive of in his day, so attacking it as "not explanatory" does not contribute value to the debate.

And the larger point is missed by this line of reasoning anyway. It sounds like WLC is making the same mistake that Timbo makes by equating "randomness" with Godlessness. We exhausted this discussion on this list a few months ago as well. To summarize, God can still be involved even if He uses truly "random" processes. But the overcorrection mentioned earlier is appealing to specific direct intervention as a counter to the perceived evils of randomness. This is faulty and superfluous and undermines the argument for faith.

Thanks

John

--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:

> From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> Subject: Re: W.L.C. "mishandling" biology (was Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008)
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 1:13 PM
> 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.

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 18:16:19 2008