Science and Organic Evolution

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
     In my opinion, the key phrase in Dave's post is "direct creationism".
When we use the phrase "creationists", we are usually referring to "direct
creationists".
     However, many biologists who believe in evolutionary theory also
believe in the possibility that a "supreme being" initially set the laws of
evolution (and physics, chemistry, etc.) into motion.  Perhaps such
"indirect creationism" is our best argument against the more extreme "direct
creationists".
      I have many times suggested indirect creationism as an alternative to
those find evolution as an assault on their religious beliefs, and this
alternative actually strikes a chord with many.  Just another one of those
middle-ground approaches I prefer to take that can generate cooperation and
discussion where there would have otherwise been no cooperation and a
divisive attitude of "us versus them".  Therefore to me, the warfare between
theology vs. science can be ameliorated (if we work at it), even though it
is perhaps a hundred times more intense than the warfare between scientists
over cladism vs. eclecticism.  Indirect creationism is an alternative (more
moderate) choice that is FAR FAR less threatening to science education.
Moderation in all things.
        ------ Cheers,
                 Ken Kinman
P.S.  I might add that the "xenophobia" that many strict cladists have been
taught to feel toward paraphyletic taxa has a rather puritanical streak to
it that often manifests itself as "scientific discrimation and intolerance".
  Although this biological warfare is less extreme than that which has been
historically demonstrated between different religions and different races,
it a form of puritanical xenophobia nevertheless.
     In all these cases, the solutions lie in mutual understanding and
moderating extreme viewpoints.  A learned intolerance of paraphyly is an
interesting parallel to those greater problems humanity has long confronted,
especially when you hear some cladists are just waiting for all the
eclecticists "to die off".  I'm sure Quakers and many other strict religious
sects have had similar visions of eventual triumph, but extremism always
becomes marginalized in the long run.  In the short run it just creates a
lot of unnecessary confusion, intolerance, and sometimes even hatred.
*****************************************
>From: PROFDHW at AOL.COM
>Reply-To: PROFDHW at AOL.COM
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Science and Organic Evolution
>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:04:27 EST
>
>I don't think we will ever overcome our natural (meaning not out of the
>ordinary or unexpected) tendency to hate and kill one another until we
>fully
>understand the Pleistocene context in which such emotions (or emotional
>nuances) as rage, fear, and xenophobia have been selected and consider the
>irrelevance of such contexts in the atomic age. Not until we all realize
>that
>we must rise above a genetic imperative can we begin to conquer these
>currently inappropriate responses. We can't even go to this intellectual
>place without the theory of evolution by natural selection. In my mind,
>this
>approach could certainly be no less successful than religion that seems to
>encourage xenophobia. The evolutionary proposition (i.e., science), at
>least,
>advocates a unified approach.
>
>Is this a potentially useful prediction? That human behavior evolved in a
>context almost totally alien to the one which we have since created? That
>to
>achieve great things we must overcome our behavior, not because we have
>disappointed a creator but because life is TRULY meaningless unless we can
>make it work for US...   here and now?
>
>We are apes with suits on and the sooner we accept it the sooner we can
>come
>to a meaningful engagement with existence.
>
>"Whatever additional factors may be added to natural selection--and Darwin
>himself fully admitted that there might be others--the theory of an
>evolution
>process in the formation of the universe and of animated nature is
>established, and the old theory of direct creation is gone forever. In
>place
>of it science has given us conceptions far more noble, and *opened the way
>to
>an argument for design infinitely more beautiful than any ever developed by
>theology."*   Andrew Dickson White, in 'The Warfare of Science With
>Theology'. *Emphasis mine.*
>
><A
>HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.htm
>
>l#Intro">The Warfare of Science With Theology</A>
>
>If the link doesn't work try the cut & paste method. You might have to
>clean
>up the wrap.
>http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.html#Intr
>o
>
>Dave Williams
>
>In a message dated 02/11/12 1:01:12 AM, LISTSERV at USOBI.ORG writes:
>
> >but if the 'science' of evolution is simply its status as a
> >non-supernatural explanation (at least that's my inference from the
> >argument presented by Dave Williams), there seems to be little for
> >evolution to offer as a scientific research program
>
>
>Dave Williams
>Science Department
>Valencia Community College, East Campus
>701 N. Econlockhatchee Trail
>Orlando, FL  32825
>407-299-5000 x2443
>profdhw at aol.com

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail