RE: Panda's from 1995

From: Hofmann, Jim <jhofmann@exchange.fullerton.edu>
Date: Fri Nov 11 2005 - 18:23:44 EST

Why not just say that no evidence will ever convince you and leave it at
that? One comment:

 

"Anti-evolutionary writers have attempted to coop the term 'design' so
as

to make it incompatible with common descent. They have done so by
blurring the

distinction between design as an intention, on the one hand, and the
execution of

that intention on the other. Life may well have been 'designed' in the
sense that it

was divinely intended for a specific purpose. Nevertheless, even if this
is the case,

the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the
execution

of that intention has been through the process of common descent.
Students must

be made aware of this fact and should be allowed to draw their own
conclusions

about whether or not common descent represents the execution of a
supernaturally

intended design, an issue that is not appropriately decided in a science
classroom." (p. 755)

"The Fact of Evolution: Implications for Science Education", Science and
Education, 2003, vol. 12, pp. 729-760. James R. Hofmann and Bruce H.
Weber)

 

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencerevieweckhardtweber.pdf

 

Jim Hofmann

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Cornelius Hunter
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 3:16 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Panda's from 1995

 

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 <mailto:grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>

        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
<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 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9503392> 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 <http://www.arn.org/docs/pc1110.htm#anchor45842>
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 18:24:01 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 11 2005 - 18:24:01 EST