Posted on 07/08/2002 12:26:11 PM PDT by Khepera
Could it be the evolutionists who are being irrational?
About a year and a half ago, I gave a response to an article in the L. A. Times about a book called The Moral Animal--Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright. This response resulted in my commentary called " Did Morals Evolve? " There are some interesting things in this book I want to comment on. Wright's argument is that it is possible to explain all of man's mental and moral development in terms of evolution, "survival of the fittest," and natural selection. One thing he acknowledges is essentially the same point of view held by one of the world's most famous evolutionists, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins makes the point in his watershed book, The Blind Watchmaker , that the world looks designed. He asserts it looks designed--but isn't. He believes natural selection can be invoked to account for all of the things that appear to be consciously design.
Robert Wright unabashedly makes the same point. He uses design language in his descriptions all of the time. He talks about nature wanting certain things and natural selection designing particular things, but then is careful at different points to add the disclaimer that this design is just a manner of speaking because Mother Nature doesn't actually design anything. Natural selection doesn't design anything. There is no mind behind this, no consciousness. It just looks that way. However, since it looks designed, he feels comfortable using design language to describe natural selection as a designer, which is no conscious designer at all.
I think his work might be more honest if he didn't use design language, but it's interesting that he is at least willing to acknowledge that nature does look designed.
Incidentally, I am one who believes that natural selection is a legitimate explanation for many things. I think we can see natural selection at work in the natural realm that does influence the morphological distinctives of populations. The shape of the body is ultimately going to be determined by the genetic makeup of the creature, but whether that phenotype gets passed from generation to generation will be determined by environmental factors--natural selection. And that will then begin to characterize larger groups of the organism.
Basically I believe in what is known technically as the Special Theory of Evolution, or micro -evolution, because it has been demonstrated without question to have occurred. We can observe it happening. This doesn't go against my Christianity or my conviction that God created the world. Darwinian evolution requires macro -evolution, or trans-species evolution.
Any design creationist of any ilk, whether old-earther or young-earther, can hold to this. For example, a population of mosquitoes can be almost entirely wiped out by DDT, except for those few who may be naturally and genetically resistant to that strain of DDT. Then they reproduce a whole strain of mosquitoes that are resistant to that strain of DDT. But this is unremarkable. When I hear these kinds of descriptions of minute changes and small variations within a species attributed to natural selection, I have no problem with that in itself.
The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it, and not by evidence that God could not have done it.
I do have another question regarding the assessment, or acknowledgment, that the world looks designed. If it looks designed, it could be equally explained by either the unconscious "design" of natural selection, as the author argues, or the conscious design of a Creator. If someone looks at the natural realm and observes that it looks designed but thinks that it can be accounted for by natural selection, then they are identifying empirical equivalency between two different explanations. Empirical equivalency means the observable data can be explained by two alternatives equally. In this case, the observation of design can be attributed to natural selection or conscious design. The evidence is equal for both. That's what it means to say that the world looks designed but natural selection can account for it. My question is, why opt for the evolutionary explanation if there are two different explanations that will equally do the job? When you have a question that needs resolution and two empirically equivalent solutions, you must look for some other information to adjudicate between the two. Is there something that can be said for one system over the other that would cause us to choose it as the paradigm which better reflects how the world came to be? What is the compelling evidence that would cause us to opt for a naturalistic explanation over some kind of theistic explanation? Frankly, I know of none. There is only a predisposition to look for a naturalistic explanation that leaves God out. If that is the case, then it needs to be acknowledged.
Why go for natural selection rather than for God? Because God is religion and natural selection is science. Science is seen as fact--and religion as fantasy. If we have a set of physical facts that can be accounted for by a theistic explanation, then you have to have some other information that may cause you to want to dismiss the theistic option. I'm asking "where is the evidence that makes the God option an intellectually untenable one, without bringing in a mere philosophic assumption (namely naturalism)?"
One might rightly ask, where is your evidence that God did it? I can give lots of it. I could give independent evidence that is unrelated to religious authority claims. I can give other evidence why it is reasonable to believe and would be intellectually and rationally compelling to believe that there is a conscious mind behind the universe. I could give cosmological and moral arguments that God is the best explanation for the existence and nature of the universe. Many of these rely on scientific evidence.
Given two options to explain the apparent design features of the universe, one seems to be a bald-faced authority claim -- the non-religious, so-called scientific one.
We have two options--one scientific and one religious--that equally explain the observation of a designed universe. The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it and not by evidence that God could not have done it. However, the design claim that I am making can be further substantiated by other evidence for the existence of God. When push comes to shove, if you are rational, it is more reasonable for you to adopt the conscious design explanation--the God claim. Most people are not going to do that because it is not scientific.
Why does that matter? Because science knows the answer. How do they know the answer? Because God doesn't exist. How do they know that? Because nature did everything. But how do you know that?
That is the question we are trying to ask and there are no rationally sustainable answers forthcoming.
Indeed, we have a theistic reason for everything, so we should stick with it until those infernal scientists prove there's no god.
Amen brother. And until it's not been proven that there's no god I'm for removing those blasphemous lightning rods from churches.
Those are steeples, you ninny.
It always amazes me how Darwinists, like democrats, resort to name calling in the absence of substantial contrary evidence. Your post is a clear example of atheisms high handed rule over science. By implying that "anti-E's" are not "normal" scientists, you have tipped your hat.
Normal scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals and are scrupulous about quoting others accurately. Behe and Dembski don't do either. Anti-E's are notorious for bearing false witness by misquoting normal scientists out of context, or as in Behe's case, adding a period in the middle of a sentence. If they were really trying to convince other people (scientist or not) that they were right, they'd be more honest. Therefore, one concludes they're not trying to convince anyone they're right, they're trying to get money from those who already disbelieve normal science. IOW, fleecing suckers.
Was Fred Hoyle (the b747-junkyard-tornado guy) a regular scientist, or someone who just craved a little attention after his pet theory (steady-state universe) was shot down? Is Dembski the Newton of informnation science (comparison some of his followers have made), or is he the Velikovsky?
Also, your confusing evolutionary theory with atheism.
Right. Wasn't it Zeus's lightning bolts? Or was that Thor's hammer? Vulcan's forge? No, wait, it'll come to me ...
Whew! Glad I wasn't standing next to you.
Main Entry: epis·te·mol·o·gy Pronunciation: i-"pis-t&-'mä-l&-jE Function: noun Etymology: Greek epistEmE knowledge, from epistanai to understand, know, from epi- + histanai to cause to stand -- more at STAND Date: circa 1856 : the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity - epis·te·mo·log·i·cal /-m&-'lä-ji-k&l/ adjective - epis·te·mo·log·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb - epis·te·mol·o·gist /-'mä-l&-jist/ noun More apropos for the 'she's not there' or 'she's just a robot' aspect of the argument, otherwise you may as well say that a carrot is in an epistemically-defective position with respect to the soil in which it grows. That's true, but it's just a statement of the fact without any hint as to why it is so. |
That assumes that all things that exist are bound to time. Just as a local variable cannot know the presence of a local variable in another function, we cannot know what exists outside of the constraints of time.
But of course all features are useful throughout. You're making a point of misunderstanding and not remembering what people have been explaining to you daily for probably 10 years now. (And you're not impressed with me?) Before you can do sustained flight, you can do short hops. Before you can do short hops, you can glide from a height. Either might help you get away from a predator or pounce on your prey.
Those specialized lungs so good for the high oxygen uptake for flight: think they wouldn't help with running? You're saying that birds have a lot of really, really new features. They don't. Almost everything can be found on some dinosaurian species or other. The line between dinosaur and bird species gets very blurry in species like Caudipteryx. And why is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.