From: glenn.morton@btinternet.com
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 13:56:56 EDT
My wife and I got a big belly laugh out of comments made about my
views in the June PSCF by my friend Bob Newman. The article, Robert
C. Newman, "Some Problems for Theistic Evolution, PSCF
55(2003):2:117-128 is an excellent article. I thought I would make a
few comments.
First, like many anti-evolutionists, Newman appears to think chance
and design are incompatible. He writes:
"Has God so hidden himself that humans could not detect his activity
anywhere in the history of life on earth, not even by statistical
means?" p. 118
I would point him to an upcoming article by Gordon Simons and myself
in Sept PSCF entitled Random Worms. Without giving away the story
line, Gordie and I (mostly Gordie) analyzed the statistical structure
of gene orientation in many different organisms. What we found was
that the lower organisms appeared to be less randomized in their
statistical structure than were the higher organisms, fruitflies,
nematodes etc. The technical details of our work will be published
in Journal of Theoretical Biology. Volume 222, Issue 4, Pages 407-530
(21 June 2003)
The PSCF article examines the role of chance in God's creation and
the bad theology of dismissing randomness in the world.
Bob further writes:
"On the other hand, marine life, particularly those sorts having hard
body parts not soluble in water would presumably leave a pretty
complete record. In any case, the actual fossils that do survive do
not appear to be an imperfect record of the sort of gradual process
DArwin envisioned." p. 121
No matter how many times one points out that there are transitional
forms, anti-evolutionists deep six the concept and deny it happens.
Take a look at http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/micro.htm
The microfossils clearly show a gradual transition.
Bob further writes:
"For the higher cateagories in the biological classification sscheme,
the separations between categories are hundreds or thousands of
mutations, so we should have hundredds or thousands of large
intermediate populations which are nearly as capable of leaving
fossils as their ancestors, and descendants. This we do not see, and
it is a scientific problem for all forms of gradualistic
evolution--whther theistic or not." p. 121
This idea that all evolution must entail hundreds of thousands of
mutations is not seen in the data. Look at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/impotent.htm
for information on the Monkeyflower in which only 8 mutations can
change the flower from a bumblebee to a hummingbird 'designed' flower.
Bob writes:
"As a matter of fact, the fossil record pictures life as something
like a large series of bushes, with the major body plans for the
animals all being formed in the brief period known as the Cambrian
Explosion." p. 122
This violates the genetic information which indicates that lineages
extend way back into the pre-cambrian. I have just read a book, In
the Blink of an Eye, by Andrew Parker. I will write a review of PSCF.
This book advances the idea that the explosion was caused by the
evolution of vision. His thesis on the Cambrian explosion is the
only one I have heard that actually answers all the questions. Thus,
this would bring into question the idea that the major body plans
"formed" during the Cambrian explosion. They merely took on armor to
protect themselves from predators who could SEE them.
I was gratified to see Bob on p. 123 argue for a position I have long
argued for, that is that Genesis teaches that the LAND and Water
produced life. God did it through secondary processes. And I was
gratified to note that he acknowledges that the phrase 'after their
kind' says nothing about reproduction.
I think the best part of the article is when, in his exegesis of
Genesis 2, he says:
"It seems that nephesh represents a breathing being, and hayah is the
usual adjective for 'living,' so that Adam becomes a living,
breathing being. The implication is that Adam was not alive before
this happened, even though hsi body had already been formed." p. 124
He then criticises thous evolutionary positions in which Adam is a
special creation as conflicting with this exegesis. I absolutely
agree with this. But then it seems a bit contradictory to call my
view 'quirky' (which I got a huge laugh out of) when it is the only
view that actually fullfills his own exegesis.
He writes:
"For other versions in which Adam is descended from apes but is still
a real special creation, the only problem is the remark in Gen 2:7
about Adam becoming a living being. This has been handled by Glenn
Morton in a satisfactory (though quirky) way by suggesting that Adam
was a non-viable mutation of an ape that consequently died but God
brought to life again. All these views come unter the category I call
'Adam-type' theistic evoution. I see no large exegetical or
theological problems here." p. 124
It is clear from genetics that we share many of the same gene
histories and pseudogenes with the chimp. No rational person can deny
this. My question is this: Is there any other scenario which can be
advanced which has Adam's body made prior to the 'breathing' and
which still explains the genetic connection with the apes and the
need for the strange creation of Eve?
I know of none. But if it is quirky to advance theories that
actually match the facts, then I remain
Quirkily yours
Glenn [qui R. ky] Morton [my middle initial really represents the R
in Quirky. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 19:34:14 EDT