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

Fair retort, George. But then follow through on the logical consequence:

Darwin's view of nature was wrong. Not "methodologically correct, but
metaphysically wrong". Just wrong.

And by "Darwin's view of nature" I don't mean his individual hypotheses and
speculations about the everyday mechanisms of genetics or geology or this or
that, many of which we know to be wrong. I mean his overall view of nature,
and of natural causes -- he was wrong. Physics doesn't work the way he
thought it did, and he tried to model his biology on the notion of "law" in
physics at the time.

My point all along has been that *if* we suppose that nature works the way
Darwin said it does, then his theory of evolution via natural selection is
incredible, and I cannot imagine why any rational person would accept it.

Let me ask you a speculative but I believe reasonable question, George: If
Collins and Miller had never heard of quantum theory, if they thought that
variation and natural selection as Darwin understood them were the only
available causes for macroevolution, they would believe in Darwin's theory
just the same, would they not? After all, Collins and Miller never call in
quantum theory as *evidence* for evolution. They call upon it only for the
purposes of reconciling Darwinian mechanisms with belief in God as Creator.
Their arguments for the full capability of Darwinian mechanisms have nothing
to do with quantum theory, and come straight out of Mayr, Simpson, Hotton,
or Dawkins, all of whose arguments are rooted in Darwin's 19th-century
arguments, or they come straight from Darwin himself. Quantum theory has
been called in *post factum* to interpret theologically a belief in
Darwinian evolution *already held*, and already believed to be established
by science without any help from quantum theory.

As far as I know, the following thinkers and scientists accepted Darwinian
evolution on Darwin's terms, without being influenced by, and in many cases
without knowing anything about, quantum theory: Huxley, Mayr, Dobzhansky,
Gaylord Simpson, Nicholas Hotton, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Robert Jastrow,
Richard Dawkins. I suspect that is true for most theistic evolutionists as
well, especially if their training was wholly in the life sciences. And I
am betting that if a revolution in physics occurred tomorrow, and every
physicist on earth declared that indeterminacy was false, and that nature
was a closed, mechanistic causal continuum, with no room whatever for God to
initiate any chain of events after the Big Bang, every living TE would would
still believe in macroevolution through variation and natural selection.

If I am wrong, name me a few theistic evolutionists who used to find
Darwinism entirely *incredible*, until they discovered how Darwinism could
be understood in terms of quantum theory, after which they found it
*credible*. Surely that is the acid test, not of the truth of theistic
evolution, but of the world view upon which theistic evolutionists base
their acceptance of Darwinian mechanisms.

The point is that the main arguments for the truth of Darwinian evolution
(both regarding the fact of evolution and the mechanisms of evolution) were
well-established in both the biological and popular mind before the new view
of nature ushered in by quantum mechanics had any large hold on the popular
mind, on philosophy, on theology, or even on sciences (such as biology)
which lay outside of physics. TEs do not accept Darwinian evolution because
of quantum physics. They accept Darwinian evolution mostly on the strength
of arguments which originated in the 19th century. And the world-view
implicit those arguments was mechanistic.

Cameron.

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios; a
direct question

> I.e., "If the universe were different, my view would be correct." In
> reality, however, we live in the 21st century, not the 19th.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] observational vs. theoretical differences in scenarios;
> a direct question
>
>
>> David:
>>
>> A. Given your definitions, your answer makes sense.
>>
>> However, bear in mind that if it weren't for the 20th-century discovery
>> of "quantum indeterminacy", your position would be dead in the water. It
>> is quantum indeterminacy which allows you to employ a blurry distinction
>> between "guided" and "natural" events, and it is the blurring of that
>> distinction which makes your position possible. If the universe were
>> wholly Laplacean, you would have to concede my definitions, i.e., that
>> "guided" is completely distinct from "natural", and also would have to
>> concede my general point that God's only two options for guiding
>> evolution are to "intervene" or "front-load".
> " (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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 1 21:23:29 2009