I had written to Ian --
> Well, FWIW, I am similarly skeptical. But then a lot of people are. But
> being a skeptic does not mean I denigrate he evolution stories, for
they
> do hold together as the best explanatory theories we have today. That
ns
> and mutation are "enough" I doubt, but many "evolutionists also doubt
> this." My own position is one of a "Progressive Creationist," but this
is
> a philosophical, not a scientific position.
and Ian responded:
"The problem I have here is that even if the evolution "stories" are the
best explanatory theories we have today, if they are based on a process
(ns + mutation) that demonstrably doesn't work, then they remain
"stories", no better than "fairy stories", really. What is wrong with
simply saying "we don't know"?"
The phrase "I don't know" is wrong because it, to a scientist, is a "I
give up and I have no idea how to proceed" statement. In other words, it
gives no guidance for a research programme. One may as well go out and
play at marbles.
To assume that evolution, in SOME sense, is a fact, allows one to think
of new experiments to do, ones which may even disconfirm some parts of
the current evolution models.
Anyway, it is not all that clear that ns+mutation "demonstrably don't
work." A lot of very good scientists continue to insist that they DO
work. My comment (above) says only that "some" scientists have doubts
that they are sufficient.
I think that's the way the game ought to be played. "I don't know" is an
OK statement for a spectator, but not for a player.
Ian also asked: "Is "Progressive Creationist" the same as "Theistic
Evolutionist"? I understand the latter to be the idea of God subtly
guiding evolution to make things come out as He wishes. I can't really
take this anyway, because I do not believe evolution (in the macro-sense
of one species evolving into another) can be possible. Is "Progressive
Creationist" the notion more that God does not "guide evolution", but
miraculously (creatively?) introduces new species into the earth at
specific points in geological time?"
The PC position, like many positions, comes in various flavors. I suppose
the ID people would claim that label, as I do, and as Bernard Ramm did in
his 1954 book which I think introduced the term. I would distinguish PC
from TE of course. As a PC, and this is a philosophical, not a
scientific, position, I think it very likely that the earth we live on
was "visited" by some IAs, or Intelligent Agent(s), at various times who
introduced new life forms into the mix. How this was done I have no
idea, and so it is very much like the "I don't know" above; therefore it
is not scientific.
Being a Christian, I suggest that the most likely source of the IA(s) is
either God or agents of his (angels). But finding no particular evidence
for all this, either in scripture or in science, it remains my own
conjecture, and as such, is worth every penny you just spent to get it. <
G >
Given that the PC actions are very small, the PC position does sort of
fade into TE, of course.
I find David Griffin's PanENtheism position, based on Whitehead's
writings, of interest (see my notes on his book on my website), for he
sees the actions of the IA (God) to be "persuasive" rather than
"coercive," and that is an intriguing idea.
You asked if I was interested in a proof that the denary system was
"divine." I'll pass on that. Life is too short. But thanks anyhow.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 16 2001 - 17:12:49 EDT