"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Bert,
>
> >> Bob Dehaan wrote:
> >>
> >> > I would be happy to take
> >> > macroevolution seriously if there were empirical evidence that natural
> >> > selection played a significant *creative* role in it.
> >>
> >> Let me suggest some modification of vocabulary here. I would say that
> >> natural selection does nothing whatsoever that is authentically *creative.*
> >> Rather, it acts as a positive feedback mechanism in the context of a search
> >> program. Briefly here is why I say this:
> >
> > ******
> > Not so fast--Lets substitute for "creative" a different word. Yes, there is
> > undeniably a "potentiality space" of viable creatures. Not an arugement. The
> > issue is that of a mechanism to shuffle the genes of a given animal to move
> > towards the genes of another animal with the second animal having some
> > substantial new feature. Now what is "move towards" and how does this work.
> > Well, "natural selection" is posited as a selection mechanism and, while I do
> > not accept its efficacy in getting the animal through a long path, let me set
> > this aside. What I need is
> >
> > 1. A mechanism that can make substantial genetic changes in step wise fashion.
> >
> > 2. The existence of a gene trajectory path from animal A to animal B with each
> > change being large and benficial enough to modify reproduction rates for the
> > animal with the genetic benefits.
> >
> > 3. A quickly acting mechanism to make this happen which is triggered by
> > something to be identified because the fossil evidence is for stasis with
> > punctuated and rapid changes.
> >
> > What I do not accept is the efficacy of small genetic changes which change the
> > general modifiers of a given body plan (a monkey with a longer tail) as
> implying
> > the exisitence of the above.
> >
> > This is the issue.
>
> OK, at least we are getting away from the loose and theologically
> provocative use of the word "creative."
********
Yes, and good. This word misses the point.
*******
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the formational
> capabilities of the Creation are inadequate to accomplish what the
> macro-evolutionary paradigm presently envisions. Or are you saying that if
> the Creation was given a robust formational economy by its Creator, it must
> have important contributions that we have not yet discovered?
*****************
Howard,
I am not actually addressing these points. Let me make this point: How could we
tell the difference between these views? That is, what is the "differential
diagnoses."
In other words, what if
God set the initial conditions just right so that "random" proccesses would end up
with man.
or
God intervened to fix the dice to end up with man.
or
God simply injected into the biota new "stuff/."
If you cannot differentiate, then I maintain that these differences are immaterial
and we can spend our time debating other issues.
Comment?
Bert M.
**********
>
>
> My own expectation is that the Creation was gifted from the outset with a
> robust formational economy (adequate to make the remarkable process of
> macro-evolution possible), much of which remains to be discovered.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
> PS: Sorry I won't be able to answer for a couple of weeks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 00:59:40 EDT