From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Atheistic creationism -- a tutorial
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:33:13 GMT



rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
>We must therefore turn to the mechanism;
>are there feasible and compelling mechanisms for evolution.  The
>claim here is that the postulated mechanisms are not adequate.  Ergo,
>since the dominant (natural) explanation has been refuted, the
>alternatives must be considered.

What has been offered in evidence that the postulated mechanisms are
not adequate other than some disbelief about the available amount of
genetic variation?  You seem to be implying that non-natural mechanisms
are to be included even before all natural explanations have been
exhausted, while in actuality, science requires that non-natural mechanisms
cannot be included *even if* all natural explanations have been exhausted.

In any event, what falsifiable alternatives exist?  It is not sufficient
to say that alternatives such as "unknown and unseen forces may be"
responsible.  For an alternative to be considered, it must be testable.
Otherwise you have left the realm of science and entered a purely
philosophical domain.  If on the other hand, you are in fact proposing a
purely philosophical argument, or a philosophical disagreement with the
scientific method, fine, but those subjects have little to do with
evolution at all.

>>I won't, since in my view evolution is perfectly capable of explaining
>>that.

>I hope you realize that this is essentially a blind profession of faith,
>coupled with a refusal to consider alternatives to that faith.  It is
>just this attitude that gives aid and comfort to the Creationists who
>speak of the religion of Evolutionism, as though it were merely a
>competing dogma coeval with their own.

No, the error here is in the assumption that the postulated mechanism for
evolution has been refuted.  The postulated mechanism is an attempt to
explain the observation of the existence of genetic variations over time.
While you have proposed a possible source for refutation, you haven't
actually achieved a refutation.

There is a phenomena, and there is an explanation proposed for the
phenomena.  You have claimed a refutation of the explanation based on
what appears to be the argument from incredulity, and not on specific
evidence.  If you have identified a point where the postulated mechanisms
are not accurate, then it should be possible to specifically test for this.

Sans any scientific alternatives or specific refutation, the postulated
mechanism remains the best working hypothesis.  It is not automatically
an act of faith to consider the current hypothesis valid, despite the fact
that it may not be completely accurate.  After all, it has survived
considerable specific testing.  Newton's laws were valid and accurate
within certain constraints, where Einstein's proved more accurate.
Science produces working approximations, not philosophical truths.

This is not to say that there is no more to be learned about the
amount of available genetic variation, quite the contrary.  A parsity
of variation could imply additional mechanisms might exist that
conserve and recombine variations (sex seems to be one for example).
There needs to be more than rumors of limitations to outweigh the
evidences that descent with modification has been achieved via
genetic mutation, especially when computer simulations of such
mutations haven't encountered such limitations.  That descent with
modification has occurred is unassailable except philosophically
(the validity of perceived reality, etc.), whether you define it as
a natural process or a series of independent ex-nihlo events, the
relatedness of the organisms over time exists.

Ultimately, if avoiding resorting to philosophical arguments about
the legitimacy of perceived reality, you may have to agree that the
relatedness of organisms illustrates that whatever external force that
might exist which generated new organisms must have used the previously
existing organisms as a template, even if only a conceptual one.
Therefore, descent with modification remains an accurate description.

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins