Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Front-loaded/teleological Evolution, Baraminology, and Common Descent
I am a big fan of front-loaded evolution. I don't go to the same extent that MikeGene does -- I think that the original kinds were separately created, not programmed to evolve from a single-celled organism. However, one thing that many Creationists, ID-ists, and Evolutionists miss is that when one assumes that teleological evolution is possible (that is, evolution that proceeds based on "smart" systems that direct evolution to semi-specific targets), then most arguments against common descent are nullified.
What often happens in the Creationary community is that we have spent so much time arguing against Darwinism that we sometimes forget what it means for Darwinism to be false. That is, once we've won the argument against Darwinism, what then? This time is quickly approaching (or perhaps is already here). The issue is that the arguments against common descent were based on Darwinism. X couldn't evolved from Y because of the hideously complicated algorithms it would have to cross. The problem is that if Darwinism is no longer assumed, this argument doesn't work against common descent. If evolution is directed, then there is no limit to the sophistication of evolutionary pathways. Therefore, complexity cannot be used as an argument against common descent.
So how does this affect us? Not much. Baraminology proceeds from the assumption that the Bible is true, and uses that to move forward. It does not try to prove the Bible's correctness -- only takes it as a given.
However, non-Darwinian/teleological evolution does give Baraminologists a better working relationship with non-Baraminologists. Whether or not common descent is true, if evolution proceeds teleologically, it does mean that there are pre-defined possible forms and mechanisms for organisms to realize. Therefore, baraminology could serve them as well, for define the basic types for biology around which variation happen. Baraminology could determine the "core systems" in existance, no matter whether they happened by independent design or common descent.
So, all that to say, as far as I can tell, when Darwinism is put to rest, there isn't any good argument against (or for) common descent, and in fact the distinction becomes less important. Because the distinction is less important, and the design is recognized, baraminology becomes important both for Creationists and non-Creationists.
What often happens in the Creationary community is that we have spent so much time arguing against Darwinism that we sometimes forget what it means for Darwinism to be false. That is, once we've won the argument against Darwinism, what then? This time is quickly approaching (or perhaps is already here). The issue is that the arguments against common descent were based on Darwinism. X couldn't evolved from Y because of the hideously complicated algorithms it would have to cross. The problem is that if Darwinism is no longer assumed, this argument doesn't work against common descent. If evolution is directed, then there is no limit to the sophistication of evolutionary pathways. Therefore, complexity cannot be used as an argument against common descent.
So how does this affect us? Not much. Baraminology proceeds from the assumption that the Bible is true, and uses that to move forward. It does not try to prove the Bible's correctness -- only takes it as a given.
However, non-Darwinian/teleological evolution does give Baraminologists a better working relationship with non-Baraminologists. Whether or not common descent is true, if evolution proceeds teleologically, it does mean that there are pre-defined possible forms and mechanisms for organisms to realize. Therefore, baraminology could serve them as well, for define the basic types for biology around which variation happen. Baraminology could determine the "core systems" in existance, no matter whether they happened by independent design or common descent.
So, all that to say, as far as I can tell, when Darwinism is put to rest, there isn't any good argument against (or for) common descent, and in fact the distinction becomes less important. Because the distinction is less important, and the design is recognized, baraminology becomes important both for Creationists and non-Creationists.
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 7:07 PM 
