Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 15:04:46 EDT

Responding to Glenn and Ted:

Glenn:

You wrote:-----------------
GRM: ... why on earth are you so opposed to evolution? If ID says nothing about evolution, why do you use it to argue against evolution? Doesn't this sound a bit mixed up to you?
--------------------------------

I am opposed to evolution because it is not a good theory. I did not say "ID says nothing about evolution." I said: "A common misconception is that ID is at the evolution level; that is, an explanation for how the species arose, and by extension, all of natural history."

You wrote:----------------------------
Glenn wrote: " You can't seem to defend the gaping holes in your arguments
against evolution."
CH asked: What "gaping holes" are you referring to?

GRM: The fact that your design theory can't account for why the design changed all the time. Who changed the designs (species) Why did they do it (after all if the designer is intelligent he [this supposed little green man from Betelgeuse who isn't really God] must have had some reason for changing the design over and over). What was it?
-------------------------------------------------

My arguments against evolution are based on comparing the theory and its claims with what we actually know from biology. Evolution has difficulty with comparative anatomy, small-scale adaptive change, at the molecular level, embryonic development, complexity, etc. The problems I've mentioned here are only a sampling. You are right that design theory doesn't account for why the design changed all the time (at least in my opinion; perhaps some IDers might think otherwise). What was God's reason for biosphere makeovers? I don't know. It is interesting that early evolutionists and naturalists from the 17th and 18th centuries had this and other theological concerns, leading to a move toward naturalism across the board in the historical sciences. Evolution was very much "in the air" when Darwin came around, and he found himself agreeing with (and amplifying) these theological concerns. So for naturalists, the answer to questions such as "What was God's reason for biosphere makeovers?" is not "I don't know" but rather "There is no reason," and anyone who says "I don't know" is turning a blind eye to the obvious. They have made a non biblical assumption about God, and anyone who disagrees will incur their wrath.

You wrote:-------------------------------
GRM: You seem to miss the entire point. The fact that the fauna have changed in nested hierarchies throughout time IS great evidence of common descent.
-----------------------------------------------

If so, then the many violations of this nested hierarchy would falsify evolution. But the theory remains unfalsified, because in fact this really is not a prediction of evolution; rather, it is yet another whipping boy against creation. Of course, this "God wouldn't create a Linnean pattern" is precisely one of the many strong theological arguments made by Darwin for evolution. Religion trumps science. As with most of Darwin's arguments, it parallels earlier concerns from 17th or 18th c., this time as voiced by Kant and Bernoulli vis-a-vis the solar system.

Ted:

Thanks for the note on Wesley. Yes, my source is secondary (Antony Flew). Nonetheless, my point does not hinge on Wesley's position, in particular.

--Cornelius
Received on Mon Aug 1 15:06:45 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 15:06:45 EDT