Origins: key ideas of evolution

Other posts are under the label Origins.

The evolution model has four key ideas pertaining to the origin of the universe, life, and diverse kinds:

1. The world is changing; it is not static. (This was postulated to rebut the concept of fixity of species, a 19th-century Creationary idea that is not part of today's creation model. Here, though, is a brief AiG article explaining the confusion wrought by changing a word's definition midway through a historical period.) This is not disputed by creationary scientists.
   
2. Evolution (lower-case e) is a slow, gradual, continuous process. (However, it may be accelerated by selection.) Again, creationary scientists do not dispute this.
   
3. Common descent means that all form of life have various common ancestors. (To which a creationary scientist would reply: To an extent!)
4. The mechanism for the origin of diverse kinds of life, and of life itself from chemicals, is natural selection - neo-Darwinism adds mutations to the mix. More on this later.

My comments: Although Darwin extrapolated from artificial selection to natural selection, there is a key difference between the two. The former is based on a primary cause (the intelligent agent doing the selecting), whereas there are only secondary (natural) causes involved in the latter. Neo-Darwinian evolution adds genetics (which was conveniently ignored for many years by Darwinists because of the laws of inheritance) as a component. Granted, sport mutations do occur. But the vast majority of "new" traits are recessive ones being expressed - they were already present.

Origins: history of the creation model; some resources

For other posts in this series, look under the label Origins.

Essentially, the source of the creation model is not people (as with the evolution model), but rather the Bible. Yet there are other, non-Bible-derived creation models, but the principal one is from the Christian worldview. The Bible is revelation, written down by people yet inspired by God. This has led to a charge (mentioned again in a later post) that, since the source of the creation model is *unscientific*, therefore the creation model must be entirely unscientific, aka "religious."

How would a creationary scientist respond to that charge? Have at it!

Bonus for today: some interesting reading on the creationary side of the debate.

• Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J. C. Sanford. This book, which I just finished, presents a thorough argument that genetic entropy as theorized and seen today does more than not support the basis of the evolution model...
• "Is God an Evolutionist?" by David Menton. This article argues against theistic evolution (TE) in general, from a Lutheran point of view.
  

Origins: history of the evolution model

The posts in this series are under the label Origins, at left.

Evolution, at least the model thereof, wasn't handed down by some omnipotent being, since the definition excludes such a being. Rather, it was developed in spurts by many people from at least 600 B.C., culminating with Darwin, the synthesizer of all the ideas. Simply put, the source is man.

Below are various ideas pertaining to the evolutionary model (some are dated and rejected today but helped form the foundation), the people who originated them, and my comments.

• Water (a secondary cause) was the origin of everything - Thales, section 3. Water is indeed a reducing agent (the Miller-Urey experiments required a reducing atmosphere) and is used in many biological reactions.
• One species can become another species over time - Anaximander, bottom of page. The definition of "species" has been in at least a little flux for quite some time now, but this concept is definitely a building block in the evolutionary model.
• Chance (a secondary cause) is a productive force by itself - Empedocles, top half of page. There's a technical definition of "chance" used by scientists in a slightly different way than the rest of the population uses it, but look at the web page and see what its understanding of "chance" is.
• Spontaneous generation (life from non-life) is a mechanism to produce life - Aristotle. At the bottom of the page is something interesting: while Pasteur's experiments demonstrated that life cannot under today's conditions (an oxidizing atmosphere, different gas proportions, etc.) originate from dead organic matter, scientists hold firm that it could have under different conditions. It must have, in order for the evolutionary model to be true. But those conditions are for another day.
• Uniformitarianism is a main process through history - Hutton and Lyell, both geologists. Again, this will be discussed in more detail on another day. But Hutton's reasoning behind a conclusion of uniformitarianism is very interesting. Go read it.
  

Origins: an introduction

The material in this series (under the label Origins) is based off a class I had this past semester. With the professor's permission, I have set out to post topics of class discussion and my reactions to them, as well as outside links if I can find them.

Cosmogony, whether you know it by that name or not, is a hot topic: evolution versus creation. It's the study of origin science (historical, not observable - observable science works only in the present); therefore, neither side can "prove" its case, but both sides must rather make sure that their own models of origins are logical (which both are, as we will see) and able to encompass a wide variety of evidence (as both can), inferring as to the better model. Both models have religious as well as scientific aspects.

Why study origins at all? Answer: The meaning of something is linked to its origin.

First, very brief definitions of both models. (Ed, please correct me if I'm wrong on the definition of the evolutionary model.)

• Creation: The universe, life, diverse kinds, and human beings have their origins in a primary cause, that is, an omnipotent designer (aka the "First Cause" - and no, Biblical Creationism is not the only subset of the model). Secondary causes, aka natural laws, govern the continuance and maintenance of the universe.
• Evolution: The universe, life, diverse kinds, and human beings have their origins in secondary causes only; no primary cause was involved. Maintenance of these things is also by secondary causes.
• Theistic Evolution (TE): a subset of the evolution model attempting to reconcile the Bible with current science by saying that God used evolution as a means of creation.

More later. Chew on that for a few days.

Interesting quote

Courtesy GHF, who is perusing "The Education of Henry Adams". Henry is the great-grandson of John Adams; at this point in the book, he is secretary to the American delegation in London. He has just made the acquaintance of Charles Darwin...

Ponder over it as he might, Adams could see nothing in the theory of Sir Charles but pure inference, precisely like the inference of Paley, that, if one found a watch, one inferred a maker. He could detect no more evolution in life since the Pteraspis than he could detect it in architecture since the Abbey. All he could prove was change. Coal-power alone asserted evolution,—of power,—and only by violence could be forced to assert selection of type.

All this seemed trivial to the true Darwinian, and to Sir Charles it was mere defect in the geological record. Sir Charles labored only to heap up the evidences of evolution; to cumulate them till the mass became irresistible. With that purpose, Adams gladly studied and tried to help Sir Charles, but, behind the lesson of the day, he was conscious that, in geology as in theology, he could prove only Evolution that did not evolve; Uniformity that was not uniform; and Selection that did not select. To other Darwinians—except Darwin—Natural Selection seemed a dogma to be put in the place of the Athanasian creed; it was a form of religious hope; a promise of ultimate perfection. Adams wished no better; he warmly sympathised in the object; but when he came to ask himself what he truly thought, he felt that he had no Faith; that whenever the next new hobby should be brought out, he should surely drop off from Darwinism like a monkey from a perch; that the idea of one Form, Law, Order, or Sequence had no more value for him than the idea of none; that what he valued most was Motion, and that what attracted his mind was Change.

Soon I plan to begin a series on cosmogony; how's that quote for getting you started on thinking about the topic?