Re:Ev. method

Robin Mandell (rmandell@jpusa.chi.il.us)
Sun, 20 Dec 1998 18:27:10 -0600

At 04:37 PM 12/20/98 -0600, you wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, Robin Mandell wrote:
>
>> At , you wrote:
>> >At 03:33 PM 12/20/98 -0600, you wrote:
>> >>To me, as a Christian, I found the the idea of an unbroken chain of life
>> >>from simple to man limiting the sustaining power of God who can choose to
>> >>break this continuity when a higher purpose can be served such as the
>> >>Virgin Birth of Christ and His resurrection. As a biologist and a student
>> >>of philosophy and theology, I understand that the worldview of the
>> >>biologist shapes his/her interpretation of biological evidence. The
>> >>mechanism of natural selection which explains variations and speciationw
>> >>was taken by Darwin to justify his belief of Common Descent versus the
>> >>alternative of Common Descent. Most biologists have come to the
>> >>realization that natural selection fails to account for macroevolution.
>> >>Some of us believe a time for paradigmatic shift may be at hand and the
>> >>model of Intelligent Design, if it is allowed to be develop, may become a
>> >>competing worldview to guide future biological research.
>> Hi,
>> Actually I don't have a commitment to an unbroken chain but I am willing
>> to let it
>> live until we know better one way or the other. When you say "most
>> biologists" how can you define that as I would be surprised but interested
>> if that was true. Also some on this list speak as if Macroevolution was an
>> undefined term or false line? Can it really be laid out as a solid line
>> that can or can not be crossed "naturally"?
>>
>Most "open minded" biologists (I mean people who do not have a
>preconceived commitment to the popular paradigm of common descent)
>including Michael Denton and James Shapiro. Both are not governed by their
>commitment to the Christian Faith (I talked to both of them personally and
>I do not think they are Christians) and have written extensively on the
>faiture of Darwinism to account for the irreducibly complex bioloigical
>systems. Macroevolution is commonloy accepted by biologists as the
>transpecific evolution of taxa such as phyla, kingdoms and urkingdoms. The
>term was popularized by Simpson and Goldschmidt(sp?), the outspoken
>evolutionist of the last generation (50's). Punctualism, first popularized
>by Gould and Eldredge, is fast becoming the dominant view in biology. It
>contrasts with Darwinian gradualism which claims slow accumualtion of
>advantageous mutation selected by favorable environments (Natural
>Selection), which fails to account for the fossil record such as the
>Cambrian Explosion and the general lack of intermediate fossils as well as
>sequences in molecular evolution. The problem with punctualism is that
>it is only a description without any mechanistic explanations. All of
>these discussion is still embedded in the paradigm of common descent. You
>can find these phenmonena described in any recently published general
>college biology text books.
Do you feel the past record contains no organisms caught in the macroevol.
transistion zone? I saw a recent article on feathered dinosaurs in Discover
that seemed convincing.
Andrew
P.S. Does Denton still hold to "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis"? Some of
what he said in "Natures Destiny" seemed a departure to some reviewers. I
was not sure.>

------------------------------------- Dr. Pattle Pun Professor of Biology
>Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187
>eMail: Pattle.P.Pun@wheaton.edu
>Phone: (630)752-5303
>FAX: (630)752-5996
>http://www.wheaton.edu/Biology/faculty/ppp/index.html
>
>