Two points further: Yes, I choose the Bible as my justification -- and to such an extent that if my personal experience conflicts with it, then I don't trust my personal experience.Secondly, many individuals -- scientists and not, including textbook writers -- have stated that evolution has been proved. If evolution were considered just one viable possibility of two viable possibilities, there would be much less difficulty, but evolution is taught as fact, not as theory, in most instances.
As for a sufficiently complex organism or structure that can't be explained by small changes, let's begin with a rock, progress to DNA molecules and go to any living organism -- how could ANY of these have come about by small changes? And to start with, changes in what? There would have to be original material from somewhere.
: As far as i can see matters of faith raise questions of justification of belief. If you chose to rely upon personal revelation, then i would not consider that to be good enough (see my post to nikhil). If on the other hand you chose the bible to be the basis of your faith, then i would argue that too fails to meet the justification test (i could list the reasons, if you want to hear them).
: As to the theory of evolution, i don't think that any scientist aware of proper scientific method would claim that the theory of evolution has been proven. All that science does is to point out thta given the facts, evolution is the most likely event to have brought the creatures of the world today to their current status. Let me say that again, it is just a PROBABILISTIC argument that evolution has occured.
: As regards the lack of transitionary fossils, well i am no scientist, so i do not really consider myself competent to say exactly what this means. I have a few things in mind, but i think i'll refrain from taking a stab in the dark and suggest you ask someone who has an interest in the nuts and bolts.
: The second objection that you raise as regards evoultion theory is that in essence it is sufficiently plastic to account for any empirical evidence thta may be thrown up.
: I note that the infamous Gish has commented along these lines:
: "the architects of the modern synthetic theory of evolution have so skilfully constructed their theory that it is not capable of falsification. The theory is so plastic that it is capable of explaining anything"
: Darwin himself conceived that such objections might arise and formulated a way evolutionary theory could be brocken down:
: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
: The problem here is how exactly something so highly theoretical could be demonstrated. To say that a theory is falsifiable means that we might be able to accept that there are statements inconsistent with it. But what is really at issue here is the relationship between a theory and observation statements. A statements that a complex organism could not have been produced by numerous slight modifications is not such an observation statement. How then you ask can Darwinian theory be tested?
: Some time ago Duhem noted that single isolated scientific theories are not possessed of observationally testable consequences. It is only when they are incorporated into theoretical systems that involve a range of other theoretical assumptions that one may test them. To quote Worrall: "Major scientific achievements are characterised only in part by the central claims they make about the world; they also involve a specification of a set of problems and of patterns of reasoning for addressing those problems."
: This is true of Darwin's theory. The core of that theory is perhaps not as important as is the fact that it gives a framework in which to construct explanations of phenomena. Furthermore many of these explanations can be tested independenttly- by reference to geology or the like.
: Of course there are anomolies in Darwinian theory, but these exist in ANY scientifis theory and must be accounted for by mere ad hoc explanations until a better account arrives.
: Now to your final point:
: "Evolutionists commonly respond to creationists who quote Popper by noting that he sill believed in evolution. That, of course, is the point. One BELIEVES in evolution, but he does not KNOW it to be true, except by faith -- exactly the same way by which creationists KNOW creation to be true."
: Again i think that questions of justification arise here. An evolutionist wou;ld consider herself to be justified and as having evidence for her position. What justification do YOU have Gotch? You have (i assume) dubious subjective experience and you have the (even more dubious) bible.
: Questions of faith arise here only in that you import it as a question of justification. Your faith does not allow you to contemplate that the bible or your personal experience could in fact be erroneous. What your belief in the christian god basically comes down to is that 'i believe because i do'. Now, is that a convincing answer to a question? Just 'because'.
: : Well, MY response to that last question is an unqualified YES!
: : Actually, one major difference that I see is that I'm willing to admit that my conclusions are colored by my faith, but you aren't willing to admit that what you believe to be true affects yours -- or am I misunderstanding you?
: : I keep hearing that evolution has been proved, but I've still seen no proof. I've just seen what some have interpreted as "proof" because they say it supports their belief, yet the same evidence can support my belief because I interpret it in the light of my belief. Again, I would ask, where are the transitional fossils? With millions of fossils found fully formed, we ought also to find millions of intermediate fossils. Not Archeopteryx, either. At the most that could be ONE of what must have been many, many intermediate steps. Actually, evidence suggests that A. was a bird like many birds today. How could we have gone from scales to feathers, two-chambered hearts to three, etc.? Where are the transitional fossils?
: : To quote Morris, "No matter what one may see in an experiment, or in the world at large, he can always explain it, if he wants to bacly enough, in terms of evolution. He can devise an evolutionary explanations for the long neck of the giraffe or the short neck of the hippopotamus. He can conceive how the bright colors of the butterfly or the dull coloration of the peppered moth might be explained by natural selection. If he sees no evolutionary change in an animal over many generations, he can say that evolution is normally represented by 'stasis,' being interrupted by periods of rapid change occurring at such long inervals that we can never observe them, or else that evolutionary changes occur so slowly in such minute steps that no one can ever see them. ANYTHING can be "explained by evolution!" (p 16)
: : And further states, "Evolutionists commonly respond to creationists who quote Popper by noting that he sill believed in evolution. That, of course, is the point. One BELIEVES in evolution, but he does not KNOW it to be true, except by faith -- exactly the same way by which creationists KNOW creation to be true." (p. 16)
: : [From "The Modern Creation Triology," vol. 2, 1996]
