Posted by Tom on September 17, 1999 at 12:43:45:
In Reply to: So you are a follower of Gould? posted by rpcman on September 17, 1999 at 11:15:38:
: : I agree that the fossil
: : record provides at least circumstantial evidence for macroevolution.
: And genetic, homological, and phylogeny evidence provide further collaboration.
Yes this also support macroevolution, at least indirectly. More informed critics of
the orthodox position, however, fault many of the exaggerated claims made on these points.
: : I'm not contending that living things came
: : into existence instantaneously.
: So what are you contending?
I'm contenting that the doctine of creation (which I don't regard
as the same thing as creationism) can easily be reconciled to such
principles as common ancestry, and ancient earth, progressive development
of living things.
: : In fact the fossil record seems to show a number of anomalies that contradict
: : the macroevolutionary view.
: For instance?
For instance the Cambrian explosion which shows all the current phyla but no
ancestral forms--despite the aknowledgement (See Gould's Wonderful Life) that
the precambrian fossil record is complete.
: : Nevertheless, the fossil record seems to support
: : what Gould (who is certainly an orthodox evolutionist) claims.
: I have no problem with PE theory. Is this what you believe? It certainly holds that macroevolution can, does, and has happened.
As a descriptive theory, neither do I. But many noted Darwinists are deeply bothered
by it because it gives comfort to creationists. Darwin's theory is gradualistic; PE is not.
Of course Gould and Eldrige presume that some unknown evolutionary
mechanism accounts for these sudden macro-changes. But none have been identified.
: : To go back to the original point about lab-induced macroevolution, I realize that this
: : may be impossible. Still it would be nice if the scientic elites could be a bit more
: : forthright in acknowledging the limitations of scientific method to demonstrate such claims.
: You seem to be stuck with the same misunderstanding of the scientific method that blue has fallen for.
: : But I get the impression that it is sacred dogma
: : for many of you folks, and not subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other
: : scientific subjects.
: Scrutinize away. You have yet to provide a single bit of evidence to show a) that macro-evolution hasn't occured and/or b) a theory which better fits the facts.
Of course I can't prove that macroevolution has not occured any more than you can prove that Jesus did
not rise from the dead. But at least with the latter fact, we have eye witness testimony. Perhaps your request
has some validity, if you presume that I am a scientist who alledges to offer a scientific alternative
to the evolutionary paragigm. I'm not. I'm just an interested observor. The burden of proof, I think, (speaking from the standpoint
of logical and scientific conventions), lies with the evolutionists. Carl Sagan always liked to say that science
is devoted to rigorously "following the facts wherever they lead." If the facts of science don't definitively lead to
evidence of naturalistic macroevolution, then scientists ought to me more forthcoming about the weakness of the theory. lies with the scientists
: : Many of my scientific colleagues here at the University of Georgia share my skepticism.
: For instance? (Let's hear some names and see their publications.)
Francis Shaeffer, my colleague in quantum chemistry, is one of the most published scientists in
the world--with 800 scientific publications. He's been nominated for the nobel prize in chemistry and has won every other
award in science. He had serious reservations about the validity of the Darwinian paradigm--though I'm sure he would accept all of the fact
that I've just mentioned that are commonly used to support it.
My friend Russ Carlson, a microbiologist who heads one of the top genetic engineering labs in the country, has never accepted
the Neo-Darinian explanation. They, of course, are not evolutionary biologists. That wasn't my point. My point is that
very successful scientists--who clearly understand scientific method and the philosophy of science, have
doubts about the evolutionary paradigm.
: Are any of them skeptical of religion as well?
The fact that the vast majority of those who have doubts about
Darwinism are religious people is worth considering certainly. I don't
doubt that this could be a prejudicing factor. You will likely say
that we "want" our religious beliefs to be true. We do--at least on our
better days. But there are prejudicing factors on all sides. Skeptics don't "want" there
to be a God. If you would like, I would be happy to recite for you many historical
cases in which the majority of scientists have been wrong because they
were misled by cultural or ethnic prejudices. Religious skepticism is just
one more prejudice that can lead folks astray.
So far as religious people being skeptical of religion, I think that
many of us are. I know all about the case for atheism. I've read Hume, and Voltaire, and
Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, . . . . I was an agnostic in my youth, so I think I know how things
look from the other side.