Re: [asa] Re: Ditch Darwin ....and The Arty Side Of Creationism

From: Matthew) Yew Hock Tan <tanyewhock@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed May 30 2007 - 00:58:57 EDT

"I have already said biological evolution cannot be compared to technological evolution, and by implication cultural evolution. This is so obvious ..."
   
  Perhaps not so obvious and some elaboration is needed.
   
  Cultural evolution (including everything "produced" by men) are "creations" of men. Men have perfect freedom to innovate.
   
  But biological evolution supposedly must obey natural laws. And it is not perfectly clear that natural laws favour evolution.
   
  Unless you accept that God has perfect freedom to act - even if it means violating the laws of nature he established. But then, that is no longer evolution, but creation.
   
  The obvious law of nature: bacteria always beget bacteria.
   
  If bacterium suddenly begets a fungus or any multi-cellular organism, that violates the obvious law of nature. Or, if a new species of fungus appears spontaneoulsy out of nowhere...that could be a special creation of God.
   
  Another obvious law of nature: random mutations + natural selection -> microevolution.
   
  It is certainly not obviously true that RM+NS transforms bacteria into humans over deep time. That's why this is so controversial and contestable.

"(Matthew) Yew Hock Tan" <tanyewhock@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Gregory,
   
  I apologise for not paying attention to your "offlist" label and ineptly posted your private mail "onlist".
   
  I have already said biological evolution cannot be compared to technological evolution, and by implication cultural evolution. This is so obvious that I see no need for further elaboration.
   
  There can be no "absolute" position against (Darwinist) biological evolution. It is a legitimate scientific enquiry and scientific position. That does not mean it is necessarily true or well supported by evidence.
   
  As to my not returning to answer the "challenges" in the "Ditch Darwin..." thread, the simple answer is that I was asking a series of questions there.
   
  See:
  [asa] Ditch Darwin To Advance Theory of Evolution, says Professor of Evolutionary Biology
   
  Re: [asa] Ditch Darwin To Advance Theory of Evolution, says Professor of Evolutionary Biology
   
  Answers have been given, and "challenges" presented, and I have reflected upon them, and am still reflecting on some of them. You can rightly say that I was unprepared to answer those "challenges", and have no answer to those challenges yet. Meanwhile, I am also trying to answer those questions I posted -- by reading up and exploring alternative theories.
   
  So, I give you my asssurance that I will come back.
   
  (For a while, I was also hoping and waiting to see more responses to my questions. But it is now clear that no more responses were forthcoming).
  
Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    Hello Matthew,
   
  Glad to have you engaging issues here, instead of avoiding questions. The thread I sent you, however, was labelled 'Offlist,' which means it is meant as a personal correspondence and not posted to the ASA list. In the future, please respect the posting guidelines that distinguish personal from public posts.
   
  Since my questions to you are now public, it would be great if you would be willing to answer them. The obsession question can be dropped for now, if you would be willing to say why biological evolution cannot be compared with technological evolution. Are you suggesting that 'men (and women!) of science' can be said to 'culturally evolve'? If so, should I and other be led to believe that you accept the metaphor (i.e. linguistic signifier) of 'evolution' for cultural, economic and technological things, but (absolutely) not for biological things?
   
  Please excuse the directness, but last time you didn`t return to answer the challenges made to your apparently ID-arguments.
   
  Regards
  Gregory
  

"(Matthew) Yew Hock Tan" <tanyewhock@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Gregory,
  and participants of the "Ditch Darwin..." thread
   
  I wil find time to answer all of you in the "Ditch Darwin..." thread.
   
  Do I "so abhor and campaign yourself against" evolution?
   
  The cartoons are just for fun and they are artistic expressions - part of the cultural "evolution" of men of science.
   
  Biological evolution cannot be compared with technological evolution.
   
  
Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    Matthew,
   
  Please excuse the simple question. Since you've chosen to selectively answer questions posed to you at ASA, let me ask this basic one: Are you by any chance obsessed with evolution?
   
  Let me also ask, do you accept 'technological evolution,' as does W. Dembski, or 'economic evolution' as does G. Gilder? If so, is it just 'biological evolution' that you so abhor and campaign yourself against?
   
  Gregory
    
---------------------------------
  Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

Matthew Tan Yew Hock
  Support academic freedom. Support Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez.
http://www.eLearningStreams.com/origins/Gonzalez.html

    
---------------------------------
  Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

Matthew Tan Yew Hock
  "Crucify him!" They said of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez. But we support him.
  And support academic freedom.
http://www.eLearningStreams.com/origins/Gonzalez.html

       
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 30 00:59:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 30 2007 - 00:59:13 EDT