The (Salem, Oregon)
Statesman Journal includes on its Nov. 25 Opinion page a commentary by a gentleman named Irv Blake, entitled, "Evolution needs God in control". I will continue to monitor the website for the online publication, but it seems they're a bit behind. To the other, though, the
Ron Eachus column he responds to is still available.
Mr. Blake's commentary is restrained, somewhat dignified, but a perfect example of what is wrong about the creationist argument:
Eachus said there is no scientific proof of intelligent design. Yet he doesn't explain how it would be possible to prove or disprove the proposition that God created, or God is creating the heavens and the earth ....
Irv Blake
This is a logical fallacy; there is no testable hypothesis by which we can prove or disprove said proposition. When the "scientists" over at intelligent design headquarters propose a testable hypothesis, then we can get about the "science" of "intelligent design".
Mr. Blake is not without his "scientific" considerations, however:
What I can do is establish that intelligent beings can drastically alter life forms, an din the process develop a multitude of variations. I like to point to the dahlia, probably the first flower cultivated in teh Western Hemisphere ....
.... The original species dahlia has a poppylike single bloom. From that we now have a diversity of blooms ...
.... The diversity of dahlia blooms now mirrors the diversity of this planet's life forms. Yet in the 500 years in which intelligent and committed men have worked with the dahlia, no change has occurred among the wild-species plants growing in the wild.
I would urge anyone curious ... to go to the American Dahlia Society Web site ... and vie the many different dahlias ....
Irv Blake
It is almost a compelling argument, but riddle me this, please:
What reason, impetus, stimulus, has the dahlia to change? To what does any given adaptation respond? Why should we expect that the wild dahlia should change at all over the last five centuries?
Balanced against this demonstrated proof that intelligent design works is an argument that natural selection, or natural selection combined with timely mutations, has achieved the diversity of life forms on the planet Earth. The only proof offered for this claim is a collection of bones that doesn't tell much of a story ....
.... I am not trying to disprove the theory of evolution. I am stating that to work, evolution needs a God to direct and control the process. It requires a creator to make the adjustments necessary to produce the desired end product ....
Irv Blake
So what Mr. Blake proposes then, is simple enough:
- Creationism, argument in favor: Go look at what botanists can do when tampering with breeds.
- Evolution, argument in favor: A bunch of bones.
- Evolution, argument against: The wealth of information does not tell enough of a story.
Mr. Blake's article is an example of why creationism is attractive to the ignorant. It identifies itself primarily
against a theory without offering a testable alternative. What is "enough of a story"? Artists know that the story simply is; what it means has as much to do with the person receiving the story as the content of the story itself. If the record does not tell enough of a story for Mr. Blake, it well could be his own fault.
I will watch the
Statesman website for whenever they manage to post Mr. Blake's article online. Who knows if they will get to it anytime soon?
__________
Notes:
Blake, Irv. "Evolution needs God in control". Statesman Journal, November 25, 2005; page 11C.
See Also:
