Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)

From: M.B.Roberts (
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 06:49:54 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)"

    Please list the serious criticism of the theory of evolution.
    Until I know what this serious criticism is I cannot see what the problem is

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <>
    To: <>; <>
    Cc: <>; <>
    Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:33 AM
    Subject: Re: Don't forget about me! (distal vs. proximate)

    > In a message dated 4/15/01 9:06:58 PM, writes:
    > <<However, I can't understand why you appear to be insisting in this
    > that
    > Christians must "critique" evolutionary theories, in a way that is
    > distinctive to
    > a way that a Christian chemist might critique bond theories, or a
    > physicist might critique as aspect quantum mechanics. Rather one would
    > that a Christian paleontologist or evolutionary biologist would make a
    > positive
    > contribution to our understanding of biological formation by original
    > research,
    > rather than simply through a negative critique.>>
    > Jon,
    > Thanks for your note. I agree that original research is a necessary. My
    > wish is that more of it were done outside the evolutionary paradigm on
    > problems that the paradigm should be able to solve, but hasn't. For
    > instance, the idea that species go through the process of aging is not
    > considered a respectable area of research in paleontology, since George
    > Simpson squelched the topic in mid century by calling it an absurd idea.
    > there is significant evidence for it in the paleontological literature
    > however, is consistently cast in an exclusively evolutionary framework,
    > thus lost. The concept of phyletic aging implies that phyletic groups go
    > through a developmental process that involves the entire life cycle of the
    > group and is independent of evolutionary processes. But I doubt if any
    > evolutionary biologist or paleontologist would touch the topic.
    > Phyletic development happens to be my pet anomaly. It raises doubts in my
    > mind about the adequacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I would like to
    > hear from others about anomalies they have regarding the theory. I'm not
    > talking about shortcomings of the theories that will perhaps be resolved
    > time. I am talking about known phenomena that the theory should be able
    > encompass and explain, but doesn't or can't. But what I read are largely
    > criticisms of those who raise questions about the theory.
    > << I note that Sam Berry, professor of genetics at the University College
    > London
    > has published extensively on evolutionary ecology and made important
    > in
    > biology in this area. As a leading Christian he has also written several
    > books
    > on the subject. In all the ones I have read he has severely criticized
    > extension of evolutionary theory into theology a metaphysics. Michael
    > the
    > science educator, similarly repeatedly pointed out both the validity of
    > organic
    > evolution as a scientific theory and the dangers of inappropriate
    > He
    > has publicly debated with Richard Dawkins on occasion. C.S. Lewis, though
    > either
    > a scientist nor a theologian, was one of the most influential Christians
    > the
    > 20th century. He recognized that the validity of organic evolution was a
    > scientific question, not a theological one and also strongly attacked
    > evolutionism (his poem on the subject is brilliantly funny). Donald
    > was
    > another highly influential writer on the science-faith interface who
    > criticized
    > the misuse of evolutionary theories. How many more examples do you want?
    > fact, I am hard pushed to think of any Christian who has defended organic
    > evolution who has not also, to some degree, criticized its misuse in
    > of
    > atheistic or naturalistic metaphysics. As Tim Ikeda has also pointed out,
    > there
    > are quite a a number of non Christians who have also express concern over
    > such a
    > misuse of science. >>
    > As you can see, the misuse of science is not my main concern. My concern
    > that there is no longer a critical attitude toward the theory of
    > that it is placed in the same category as the established theory of
    > bonding, when in fact there has been much serious criticism of the theory.
    > Regards,
    > Bob

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 17 2001 - 07:10:37 EDT