Re: Johnson on macro from Homo erectus genes in us

From: Harry Cook (hcook@oanet.com)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2000 - 19:44:29 EDT

  • Next message: Bryan Cross: "Re: Macro/micro and common ancestry"

    Somebody wrote:

    But I think I understand his reason for claiming that
    >microevolution but not macroevolution is acceptable. Common
    ancestry does
    >not prove continuity of natural causes. Therefore, common
    ancestry per se
    >reveals nothing about the creative capacity of nature. Common
    ancestry is
    >a necessary but insufficient condition for macroevolution (as Phil
    uses
    >the word, meaning not just speciation by natural causes alone, but
    >development of all phyla from organic precursors by natural causes
    >alone). What would count as evidence for macroevolution? Both
    (1) a
    >continuous smooth genetic trajectory without any viability gaps
    beginning
    >with organic precursors and continuing throughout the entire
    phylogenetic
    >tree and (2) fossil and genetic evidence that correponds to that
    >trajectory. Since we are still a long way from achieving (1), [we
    don't
    >yet even have such a genetic trajectory for the origin of the simplest
    >life form; it is all speculation at this point] it is scientifically and
    >philosophically presumptious to declare that we know that nature
    did the
    >whole thing on her own. I think that is Phil's point, and I agree with
    >it. You might respond that it is presumptious to declare that nature
    >*didn't* do the whole thing on her own. I agree. But Phil's point
    >(insofar as I've got him correctly here) still stands.

    I would like to add the following to this discussion:

    To say that Nature does things on her own contradicts everything
    that Scriptures say about God's way with the world. God does
    everything, whether we are proponents of OEC, ID, or TE. Whether
    God used processes evolutionary processes or not is a secondary
    topic (I happen to agree with Van Till that creation is robust enough
    to use potentials present in God's creation to make evolution
    possible. But to divide processes into those caused by God and
    those that are independent of Him is a way of thinking that is very
    foreign to Scriptures.

    I too am trying to understand ID proponents, but I have a problem
    with the way they divide processes into those used by God and
    those that are independent of Him.
    --------------------
    Harry Cook
    15032 84 Ave
    Edmonton, AB T5R 3X5

    phone: 780-489-8563
    email: hcook@oanet.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 18:29:17 EDT