ID is just deja vu all over again
- From: "VBM" <v.mcalister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:35:44 GMT
In one limited sense, the ID arguments are "deja vu all over again", when
you consider the history of the theory of evolution. This history also
undermines an very important Creationist argument: that Darwinism has been a
"sacred cow" and not subject to criticism because it furthers some evil
scientific agenda of destroying belief in God. Here is a what I mean.
At the time Darwin and Wallace first proposed their idea of evolution by
natural selection, the idea of life developing from earlier species was "in
the air" as one commentator puts it. It was not unique to Darwin or Wallace,
all they did was lay out the evidence and, more importantly, propose the
mechanism of natural selection as the "engine" or mechanism that explained
the changes over time.
What is forgotten is that, while the "fact" of evolutionary development from
earlier species has continued to be accepted since Origin of Species, the
"Darwinian" theory of natural selection was entirely abandoned by 1900!
Darwin himself had given up on natural selection as the mechanism and, in
later editions of Origins, you can see him changing things to adopt an
almost Lamarkian view of the mechanics. So much for a sacred cow! Darwinism
was not only challenged, it was tossed on the trash heap.
Why? Well, there were two reasons. First, they did not yet understand
genetics. The currently accepted view was a "blending" method where
offspring is simply a blending of the two parents traits. A little thought
can see how natural selection would not work, then, since the new traits
would simply get "swamped" back into the norm. Second, Lord Kelvin had come
out with a very influential (and very wrong) calculation of the age of the
earth, which would not give enough time for the changes to develop by
natural selection. So, Darwin's ideas were dead, and other mechanisms were
sought, but none of them really worked. This proves that no matter how
attractive an idea is to scientists, it WILL be abandoned if it does not fit
with the evidence they have.
But, then Mendel's work with genetics was rediscovered, which overturned the
"blending" concept. Then, Kelvin was shown to be dramatically wrong. Now, it
was seen that natural selection could work after all, and in fact genetics
began to provide more and more confirmation that this is EXACTLY how it
happens. With the new information about mutations, it all fell into place
and the "modern synthesis" became more and more fine-tuned.
What does this have to do with ID? In one sense, a great deal. Once again,
we have an acceptance of the "fact" of evolutionary development over
billions of years. Behe, Denton and even to a certain extent Dembski, accept
the fact that life has developed over billions of years. And the first two
don't seem to have any problem at all with the idea that life evolved from
earlier species and even a common ancestor. What they object to, as in the
late 1800's, is the Darwinian MECHANISM of natural selection. Once again,
they say this just won't to do job. Something else must be driving it.
What is different is that the ID movement is not founded upon the scientific
evidence, but upon philosophical and religious underpinnings, whereas the
earlier critiques were based on purely scientific objections. The end result
will still be the same, however.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Sixth grade science teaching
- Next by Date: OT: I know it's not funny, but...
- Previous by thread: Re: PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, not Science
- Next by thread: OT: I know it's not funny, but...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
