Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

> I suspect that that the biologists generally allow themselves much more
> leeway when it comes to providing mathematically precise models than
> physicists, chemists and engineers do.  I also suspect that the evolutionary
> biologists' abandonment of the criterion of "repeatability", which is quite
> often preached in other quarters as the essence of good science, is a
> surrender to sheer necessity (we can't repeat past unique events).

This depends a lot on what aspect you are considering. There are
quite precise mathematical models in evolution and other aspects of
biology; there are aspects of physics, chemistry, etc. that are more
empirically descriptive and not so mathematical. In particular,
evolution has to do with both characterizing the general working of
the mechanisms (mutation, selection, etc.) and looking at exactly what
happened in earth history. The latter is unamenable to repeatability
and to fully mathematical characterization. Likewise, general physics
covered a lot of equations relating to the general behavior of
objects, but the math alone isn't enough to tell us what happened in a
particular historical event (e.g., what happened in an auto
accident)-we also need a lot of empirical details, and we certainly
couldn't predict that a particular car accident will happen tomorrow
based on the laws of physics.

Even in deriving explanations for past events in evolution, we are not
totally devoid of repeatability or math. Numerous different lineages
and locations can be examined for patterns to see if they hold up
across multiple examples.

> 2.  I don't see why the burden of proof is on anyone to show that anything
> is missing from evolutionary theory.  It seems to me that the burden of
> proof is on the Darwinian side.

Proof of what? The burden of proof is on the side of someone making a
claim. Anyone claiming that evolution is inadequate as an explanation
needs to come up with proofs. (I.e., claiming it is proven to be
inadequate, not "is inadequately proven")

> The theory postulates that mechanisms X and
> Y can deliver phenomenon A.  It is up to the scientists who hold to the
> theory to show how mechanisms X and Y can deliver phenomenon A, not up to
> those who doubt it to show that X and Y can't possibly deliver phenomenon A.

But that has been shown. If the right mutations happen at the right
time and get the right selection, evolution works. You think it is
unlikely for that to happen in certain instances, but it is possible.
Many ID claims assert that X and Y can't possibly deliver A, and the
burden of proof is on them to actually demonstrate that (with the
caveat that X and Y need to accurately represent current evolutionary
biology).

> Similarly, it's up to the Darwinian side to show that Darwinian mechanisms can produce more complicated effects than longer finch beaks or antibiotic resistance.  It hasn't done so.<

There are numerous larger changes than those observed in fruit flies,
etc. But the more fundamental problem is that the anti-Darwinian side
needs to prove that there's any significant difference between the
purportedly more complex and the experimentally observed changes.

> 3.  I will continue to disagree with you and several others here on the
> question of unguided mechanisms.  I continue to maintain that the view of
> "Darwinism" held by many here is not the original Darwinism or the later
> neo-Darwinism, but a late-20th century Darwinism tamed and modified by TEs
> to make it Christian-friendly.

Darwin liked British weather. I don't endorse that any more than I
endorse his theology. However, his science was basically on the mark.
 I do not endorse "Darwinism" because I am doubtful about what the
word is supposed to mean.

> And more important than that:  if Darwinism *doesn't* insist that unguided mechanisms are responsible, it's of little interest as a scientific theory.<

No. If "Darwinism" is defined as being a scientific theory, at least
in part, it is of interest as a scientific theory to the extent that
it seems to work in actually describing the physical world. I'd be
quite happy if evolution were left to the biologists and
paleontologists and no one thoguht it had any major significance for
religion and philosophy. (That wouldn't make Michael Ruse happy,
though.)

>  Its whole earth-shattering effect on the scientific world, for which it was praised by its followers and condemned by its religious opponents, was due to the fact that it showed that design was not necessary, that non-teleological processes could accomplish everything without it.  Darwin and all his followers believed that he had overthrown Paley once and for all.  You can see this simply by reading the reaction at the time, and in a zillion academic and popular presentations of Darwinism since.<

Not all of those who accepted Darwin's scientific claims were wanting
to see all guidance removed. Also, much of the early (up through
about the mid-1900's) anti-traditional religion use of Darwin invoked
teleological views of evolution, equating evolution with progress; it
persists today in many circles but has been repudiated by evolutionary
biology (whether or not the biologists are consistent with that).
Nevertheless, much of the fuss from both sides was, and continues to
be, along those lines. But the fact remains that his model works
quite well when you look at paleontology and biology.

>  I think many people here are simply writing revisionist history of science, in order to harmonize Darwin with religious belief.<

Not hardly. Numerous religious beliefs are quite compatible with
Darwin, and many more are compatible with his scientific claims.

> Indeed, I think the entire methodological/metaphysical materialism discussion was largely cooked up for this purpose.  No one ever raises "methodological vs. metaphysical materialism" in connection with the explanation for the orbit of the planets around the sun, or the evaporation of water, or the drift of continents.  TEs, along with IDers, YECs, atheists, and everybody else, are quite happy to say that gravity is the real cause, that the increased average kinetic energy of the water molecules is the real cause, and that convection currents in the semi-liquid mantle are the real cause.<

YECs often reject the ideas on the plate tectonics.

>  But when it comes to evolution, suddenly the language changes, and for some reason unguided mutations and natural selection aren't the real causes, but only the methodologically ascertained causes, and the real cause could still be guidance (though of course it has to be guidance which makes no empirical difference, because the methodologically ascertained causes would be quite sufficient even if God did not exist).<

No. Evolution is no different from the other examples. Gravity is no
more or less the real cause of planetary orbits than mutations and
natural selection are of evolution. It's YEC and ID that try to make
a distinction by claiming that accepting evolution entails no
guidance, yet they accept gravity. "Scientific" atheism does not make
a distinction, but it misinterprets everything by claiming that the
physical explanation is the exhaustive, complete, and only
explanation.

On the origin of lungs, two points must be remembered:
Gas exchange can take place across any moist, thin biological
membrane, including skin and mouth lining of amphibians and most fish.
 A basic ability to absorb air provides an important starting place on
the way to lungs, as well as compensating for limited functionality of
early stages of lungs.

In fish, lungs are useful for buoyancy as well as for gas exchange.
(This is also true in hygrophilid snails).

-- 
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.