Re: Panda's from 1995

From: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Date: Fri Nov 11 2005 - 16:53:48 EST

Rich,

I would still contend that "without plan or purpose" is not
inconsistent with theistic evolution IF it is understood from the
perspective of the created thing. We use language of like this all
the time to describe things in the universe--why is it such a problem
in biology?.

Of course, it's not true from the point of view of the Creator, from
an orthodox Christian perspective. I will concede Cornelius Hunter's
point that Darwin and most evolutionists after him do not share that
theological perspective, but that does not mean that the language is
not reasonable or that "from a scientific" perspective that "without
plan or purpose" is not the case.

If there is a "plan and purpose" that is detectable scientifically,
then I'm all ears. Where is it? How is it imposed on organisms and
ecosystems?

I think Miller conceded to Wiester much too quickly.

TG

On Nov 11, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Rich Blinne wrote:

> On 11/10/05, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu > wrote:
> Check this out: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/docs/asa_doc8.txt
>
> TG
>
>
> Interesting. Note the following:
> Following these presentations were interactions with the audience.
> John
> Wiester quoted from Miller's book, Biology (K. Miller and J. Levine,
> Prentice-Hall, 1993, p. 658):
>
> "In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the
> design of
> body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of
> course,
> there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because
> evolution
> works without either plan or purpose."
>
> He then asked Ken if he would consider this science or philosophy.
> John's
> point was that B.'s ideological implications are significant and worth
> considering for revision in the next edition of the book.
>
> MSNBC reported at the Dover trial said he missed the reference.
> Miller also backed off a statement in a 1995 biology textbook he co-
> wrote that said evolution was "random and undirected." Miller said
> he missed that reference by a co-author and that he did not believe
> evolution was random and undirected.
>
> Yet, this shows that the reference was brought to his attention in
> the same year that the book was published. Further, the phrase was
> apparently not removed in the 1998 or 2000 editions.
>
> In spite of author Kenneth Miller's pledge to the American
> Scientific Affiliation in August of 1995 to remove the phrases that
> "evolution is without plan or purpose" and "evolution is random and
> undirected" because they represent ideology masquerading as
> science, this identical language reappeared in the 1998 and 2000
> editions.
>
> Could someone with access to recent editions of Biology please
> verify this? Could someone with access to the trial transcripts get
> Miller's exact words on the stand as the MSNBC article does not
> directly quote him? If pro-teleology is not allowed then neither
> should anti-teleology. As such, Miller should be held to his pledge.

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Fri Nov 11 16:54:40 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 11 2005 - 16:54:40 EST