Re: Panda's from 1995

From: Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri Nov 11 2005 - 18:15:35 EST

There are many problems with evolution. We simply are in no position to conclude that it is a fact, and without blemish. Likewise, there are obvious evidences for design staring us in the face. Again, let's not play dumb. I'm not saying I have the answers, but it is disappointing to see the various (and opposing) claims of certainty made in this origins debate. We don't seem to be very close to a serious engagement of the issues / evidences.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Terry M. Gray
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:53 PM
  Subject: Re: Panda's from 1995

  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 18:16:59 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 11 2005 - 18:16:59 EST