Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios; a direct question

> So again, let me put it to you as a question:  Do you believe that the
> "normal course of nature" would produce macroevolutionary change without the
> special direction of God?  (In *my* sense of "special direction".)  Or do
> you believe that the "normal course of nature" could not do so?  Or are you
> undecided on the question?  (Nothing wrong with being undecided, but I'd
> like to hear you say it if that's indeed the case.)

Including detemining the outcome of indeterminate events under
"ordinary direction" rather than "special direction",
macroevolutionary events certainly can be produced by ordinary
direction rather than special direction (NB-macroevolutionary needs to
be defined). I do not see any need, either scientific or theological,
to expect special direction in the physical course of evolution. God
is, of course, capable of special direction, and it would not bother
me if evidence of it were found; I just don't think it especially
likely. Humans have some unique spiritual characteristics; exactly
how they relate to the physical evolutionary process is entirely
speculative, as far as I know.

> But do major new animal body plans form without the special direction of God?  Are such dramatic changes simply the result of regular processes analogous to evaporation and condensation?  <

As far as we can tell from the fossil record, molecular data, etc.,
yes (with the caveat that this is "special direction" versus "ordinary
direction", not "direction" versus "undirected". In particular, the
changes are dramatic more in hindsight than in themselves.

> The instinct of the human race has always been that this cannot be so.<

No, plenty of pre-modern ideas such as abiogenesis (in the sense of,
e.g., maggots spontaneously produced by old meat, not in the sense of
organic chemistry precursors to the origin of life), the Renaissance
(not documented from the "dark ages") idea of barnacle geese coming
form goose barnacles, etc. envision new animal body plans coming from
something quite different, not to mention assorted more or less
evolutionary ideas through history. Ideas such as the "chain of
being", while not specifically evolutionary, did see an
interconnectedness between organisms that could somewhat resonate with
evolution. Again, if everything is thought to be essentially
different mixes of four elements, the differences between things
doesn't seem as great. Ironically, it took scientific investigation
of the distinctives and limits of the properties of organisms to make
the differences seem remarkable.

>  Darwin said that the instinct of the human race was wrong, and that there is no more need to postulate special direction in evolution than to postulate special direction to explain where the wind is blowing.  More complex forms therefore evolve just as "naturally" as rainstorms.]<

There are a few types of "direction" involved here:
a) miraculous guidance versus guidance using natural laws
b) inherent tendency in evolution
c) inherent lack of tendency in evolution

a is what we've been discussing. However, b and c are often invoked
in relation to a and also are very involved in a lot of the general
confusion relating to evolution.
Regarding inherent tendencies in evolution, there are no overall
"goals" amenable to biological study. The cummulative effect of
selection over time will tend to produce more successful
competitors/cooperators, although major disruptions can throw this off
a bit. Thus, maximum complexity will generally increase over time,
but simple things can survive, and simplification can be a good
strategy. Complexity can also be a bit problematic. From an
information viewpoint, one can think of human (and all other modern
organisms') DNA as more or less garbled copies of the DNA of the last
common ancestor. This ignores the role of selection, of course, but
it highlights the fact that increasing entropy, i.e. mutations, in DNA
sequence is exactly what produces novelty.
Apparent "trends" can also happen because of basic physical
limitations imposed on features. If an evolving lineage starts out
somewhere other than the middle of the possible range (very likely),
then random variation will produce a shift in the mean condition. For
example, suppose that the first zebra-ish horse had a few stripes. If
the number of stripes varied randomly, the average number of stripes
would increase because you can't have less than zero stripes.
The lack of biologically identifiable goals or directions within
evolution is to be expected-evolution is merely a natural law, not
something with its own will and goal. Nevertheless, all sorts of
systems such as Marxism, social Darwinism, eugenics, etc. are built on
the premise that evolution has inherent goals.
On the other hand, the lack of inherent goals says nothing about
whether God could be using evolution as a means of ordinary direction.
 Is God at work in human history? Certainly, but this is not evident
from an analysis of patterns within history. Rather, the answer is
based first of all on faith and secondarily on interpretation of
history in hindsight within the context of faith.

> 3.  I can say nothing about how ID is marketed to the average person in the
> pew.  My "mission field", so to speak, is not among the pews, but among
> educated but secular stockbrokers, professors, bureaucrats, journalists,
> accountants and business people that I know, who have been taught and firmly
> believe that "science" has established that wholly unguided natural forces
> and events can turn a mollusk into a man.  (Not mollusk but common ancestor,
> I know, but I like the alliteration, so cut me some slack.)

"Mere microbe" merits mention-more matching macroevolution. Besides,
wouldn't it be "man into mollusk" to be progress?

> And I would say that the main point of conflict between ID and TE, from ID's point of view, is that it hasn't come across clearly to ID people that TE people also find scenario #1 incredible and reject it.  What they hear is that TEs think that scenario #1 is really, really, good science, and that its only fault is that it is bad metaphysics.<

Yes, but saying it is bad metaphysics is a rejection of scenario #1,
There is no definite scientific fault with scenario 1. Science is
always in a process of trying to better describe reality, so claims
that science has absolutely proved something without any possibility
whatsoever of change are incorrect (though common from all sides).

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.