I am back on deck! The ear operation went OK and I think I have some
hearing restored in my right ear. It is not yet as good as my left
ear, but better than it was. Thanks for your prayers!
Now to catch up with 5 days of mail! <g>
On Sun, 11 Jun 1995 20:31:57 -0400 you wrote:
GM>Evolutionary Transitions pt 2.
****Whale transition*****
>Jim Bell wrote, quoting me:
GM>Are you trying to say that the Whale transition is not a major
>(or would not be a major) transition from one group to another?
>Most creationists and evolutionists agree that it is a
>major change of morphology. It is attested to by a fairly
>complete sequence of fossils each only a small step from the
>previous one.>>
>
>He replied:
JB>You're wrong, according to Wise, who states: "None of the
>stratomorphic intermediates have intermediate structures." (TCH
>p. 227).>
>
GM>Well if Kurt is the standard of truth by which all knowledge is
>judged, then obviously what I am about to say is erroneous. But
>on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that you can
>seriously believe that just because Kurt said something and the
>entire paleontological world disagrees with him that Kurt must of
>necessity be correct.
Kurt is a *Christian* palaeontologist while the others are
*non-theistic Darwinist* palaeontologists. If God did in fact create
basic kinds progressively instead of evolve them, then I would *not*
find it hard to believe that Kurt was right and all the others wrong.
GM>He may be correct, but then again, he may
>be wrong. I think he is wrong when he says that these animals
>have no intermediate structures. That is merely a statement with
>no definition or documentation of what he means by no
>intermediate structures. I can say the sky is green but that
>does not make it true.
What he means is that all the intermediate structures are fully
formed. There are no half-arms/half-wings, as one would expect if
evolution was true.
GM>Do not get me wrong in my criticism of Kurt or of Phil. None
>of this is intended personally. Kurt was the only person at the
>1986 International Conference on Creationism who was friendly to
>me during my talk. I will never forget his kindness. But that
>does not obligate me to agree with him when I think he is wrong.
I understand that Kurt was once a member of the Reflector. Do you know
if he has an email address?
GM>Phillip Johnson chooses only Basilosaurus to discuss in his
>section on the whale (Johnson, 1993, p. 86-87). He starts his
>section with "The fossils provide much more discouragement than
>support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but
>objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist
>paleontology." p. 86.
Phil's point is that Darwinists look to the fossil record to confirm
their theory, not to try to falsify it.
GM>This is an interesting statement which brings to mind
>several questions. On what basis does he make this claim? Has
>he personally observed the fossils in an objective fashion? He
>gives no reference for an objective paleontologist who reported
>this, so one can only guess at the basis of such a statement.
>Has he been told that all paleontologists are unobjective? Is
>this like the racial stereotype "All cretins are liars" only a
>stereotype applied to those scumbag paleontologists? What
>scientific study of the habits of paleontologists prove their
>unobjectivity? How do you scientifically measure objectivity? [I
>am always objective; it is you that have nonobjective tendencies.
>:-) ] If he has been told that all paleontologists are rarely
>objective, who told him that? Who is the snitch in the paleo
>department? More importantly, is this statement designed to make
>people not listen to what a paleontologist might have to say
>about evolution? After all, he is an unobjective fellow. I for
>one would like to know the answers to some of these questions.
I think you misunderstand what Phil was saying. Go back and read his
book. IMHO he is spot on what he says about Darwinists.
GM>Phil then goes on to talk about the vestigial feet of the
>whale Basilosaurus. He says,
>
>"The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some
>supporting fossil evidence, claim it as proof for 'evolution,'
>and then ignore all the difficulties. The practice is illustrated
>by the use that has been made of a newly-discovered fossil of a
>whale-like creature called Basilosaurus.
Yes. Agree. Just finding alleged transitional forms is not proof of
evolution. Darwinists need to supply a viable mechanism of how
that alleged transition occurred as well as a plausible series of
functional hypothetical intermediates.
GM>... Paleontologists now report that a Basilosaurus skeleton
>recently discovered in Egypt has appendages which appear to be
>vestigial hind legs and feet. The function these could have
>served is obscure. They are too small even to have been much
>assistance in swimming, and could not conceivable have supported
>the huge body on land. The fossil's discoverer speculate that
>the appendages may have been used as an aid to copulation."
Any old explanation will do! <g>
GM>Accounts of the fossil in the scientific journals and in the
>newspapers present the find as proof that whales once walked on
>leges and therefore descended from land mammals." P. 86
>
GM>He then goes on to mention the difficulties he sees of whale
>evolution which Jim Bell quoted on Friday. These include
>equipment to allow deep diving under water, underwater sound wave
>communication, the suckling of the young in a fashion that they
>don't swallow seawater.
Yes. What about these difficulties, Glenn?
GM>He does not mention, much less explain the following:
>Pakicetus is only known from the skull with no post-cranial bones
>found.
Indeed. Gish says:
"The fossil material consists of the posterior portion of the cranium,
two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper and lower cheek
teeth. The creature this material supposedly represents was named
Pakicetus inachus (one can never be certain, of course, that scattered
fossil material all belongs to the same species)." (Gish D.,
"Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record", 1986, Master Book
Publishers, El Cajon, CA, p80)
GM>As Phillip Johnson notes, the modern whales have
>specialized equipment for hearing underwater. Pakicetus's
>hearing structure is intermediate between that found in whales
>and that found in land animals. Thewissen and Hussain (1993,
>1993, p. 444) state,
>"Pakicetus is the only cetacean in which the mandibular
>foramen is small as is the case in all terrestrial mammals.
>It thus lacked the fat pad, and sounds reached its eardrum
>following the external auditory meatus as in terrestrial
>mammals."
Perhaps it *was a "terrestrial mammal" and not a "cetacean" at all?
>"The incus of all described cetaceans has a greatly
>inflated body and crus longum, whereas Pakicetus shows only
>slight incudal inflation near the joint for the malleus."
Sounds more like evidence against Pakicetus being a proto-whale. Has
any one critiqued this? Gish says:
"This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or
river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores.
This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The
fossil remains associated with Pakicetus are dominated by land
mammals. Nonmammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such
as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles.
This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental rather than a marine
environment as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature."
(Gish D., "Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record",
1986, Master Book Publishers, El Cajon, CA, p80).
I am also conscious of the fact that Gingerich, the discoverer of
Pakicetus (and other alleged whale ancestors) is committed to proving
an evolutionary transition from land mammals to whales, in much the
same way that the hominid hunters have, which more objective
scientists like Zuckerman and Oxnard have discredited. In fact
Gingerich has confesssed that he made up some of his previous finds:
"We were making it up before," says Gingerich. "Now we don't have
to." (Zimmer C., "Back to the Sea", Discover, January 1995, pp83-84).
I'm sorry if I remain sceptical Glenn. It really does not inspire
confidence, if one does is not a believer in evolution.
GM>Ambulocetus natans is the next whale and was found in strata
>120 meters stratigraphically higher than Pakicetus.
Glenn, in Discover they have a picture of Ambulocetus and it looks
nothing like a "whale". It looks a bit like a crocodile.
I am also interested that the Discover article does not even mention
Pakicetus, but has the order Meonychid - Ambulocetus. Has Pakicetus
been quietly dropped?
GM>They found a
>whole lot more of the skeleton. The presumed order of evolution
>has Mesonychid as the ancestor, Ambulocetus as an extremely early
>whale transition
"Presumed" is the operative word. The picture of the Mesonychid looks
nothing like the Ambulocetus.
GM>the archaeocetes as the earliest true whales
>and the Mysticeti and Odontoceti as the modern groups.
Where does Rodhocetus and Prozeuglodon mentioned in the Discover
article fit in to this scenario?
GM>Drawings
>of these creatures skeletons can be seen in Berta 1994. Those
>drawings show the following intermediate traits for Ambulocetus.
>The Mesonychid has a rounded skull the archaeocetes (an early
>group of whales) have a pointed, streamlined skull. Guess what,
>Ambulocetus had a proportionately longer more streamlined skull
>than the Mesonychid but it is relatively broader than the
>archaeocetes. The Mesonychid has 11 ribs connected to the
>sternum, with one floating rib. Ambulocetus has 7 ribs attached 3
>floating. Archaeocetes has 5 or 6 ribs connected with 9
>floating. Modern whales have all floating ribs. Sounds like an
>intermediate to me. The Mesonychid has 4 legs with toes having a
>convex hoof.
It is only an "intermediate" if you believe these are all whales.
Otherwise it is just a list of mammals, or even possibly some
reptiles.
GM>I quote Thewissen et al, (1994, p. 211)
>"Toes are terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex
>hoof, as in mesonychids, the terrestrial ancestors of
>cetaceans."
Again, evolution has to believed first. One has to already believe
that "mesonychids" are "the terrestrial ancestors of cetaceans."
GM>The hand would sprawl like that of a seal or walrus. and somewhat
>like the hands of modern whales, the fingers flared. But unlike
>modern whales the elbow, wrist and finger joints were flexible.
>This latter trait is similar to the mesonychids. The animal
>provably moved by dorsalventral undulation like modern whales.
>Thewissen et al state (1994, p211)
The "elbow, wrist and finger joints" being "flexible" sounds more like
evidence against "mesonychids" being ancestral to "whales".
GM>"The skeleton of Ambulocetus indicates that it could locomote
>on land and in the water. As in extant cetaceans Ambulocetus
>swam by means of dorsoventral undulations of its vertebral
>column, as evidenced by the shape of the lumbar vertebra. Unlike
>modern cetaceans, however, Ambulocetus had a long tail and thus
>probably lacked a tail fluke."
"Ambulocetus" tail "lacked a tail fluke". Again more evidence against
it being a whale. I would not have thought the shape of "lumbar
vertebra" would be conclusive evidence that an animal swam like a
whale.
>
GM>The skull features are definitely cetacean. Thewissen et al
>state, (1994, p. 211-212)
GM>"Ambulocetus is clearly a cetacean: it has an inflated
>ectotympanic that is poorly attached to the skull and bears
>a sigmoid process, reduced zygomatic arch, long narrow
>muzzle, broad supraorbital process and teeth that resemble
>those of other archaeocetes, the paraphyletic stem group of
>cetaceans."
Again, I would like a second opinion on this. Of course even if
Ambulocetus was a cetacean, it does not prove it was the ancestor of
whales and nor does it prove the mechanism was Darwinian.
>All of the early whales have the nasal openings (nares) toward
>the end of their snout. This is unlike modern whales which have
>the nares on top of the head but like the mesonychids. (Vaughn,
>1972, p. 180).
Of course this may mean they were no ancestors of whales at all. How
did the "nasal opening" migrate from the end of their snout to the top
of their head by Darwinian mechanisms?
GM>Johnson asks, "Did rodent forelimbs transform themselves by
>gradual adaptive stages into whale flippers?" (Johnson, 1993, p.
>87) The answer is no, rodent forelimbs did not transform
>themselves. As I noted on Friday, Johnson's use of the term
>"rodent" for the ancestor of the whale is not correct. Rodents
>are from the order Rodentia; Mesonychids are from the order
>Carnivora. (See Romer, 1945, p. 614,625) Big difference to an
>expert. While the layperson may not find that terribly important,
>it does have the tendency to reduce the credibility with the
>experts.
Let's face it Glenn, Darwinism claims that hydrogen gas, given enough
time can produce people. Or if you don't like that, it claims that
all life (vegetable and animal) all came from a common single-celled
orgnanism. In any even, I thought Darwninists claimed that all
mammals evolved from one of two mammal-like reptiles called
Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium? I understand these resembled a
mouse? Perhaps Phil was just talking popularly?
GM>One person asked about the ancestry of the Mesonychids I
>guess wondering if the rodents were the ancestors of the
>Mesonychids. Mesonychids do not have rodents in their ancestry.
>The Procreodonts were the ancestors of the mesonychids.
So the story goes.
GM>More importantly to me, a college student who believes what
>Dr. Johnson wrote here and then goes into zoology is going to
>find that this is erroneous. This samll loss of credibility for
>what a Christian leader said, will increase the likelihood of the
>young person leaving the faith.
I doubt it. You are drawing a long bow here Glenn.
GM>Given enough of these small
>losses and it adds up to big problems. That is why I feel it is
>imperative for Christians apologists to do their absolute utmost
>to keep errors to a minimum. If one is going to attempt to
>challenge the experts in a field, as Johnson is doing, then one
>must be as knowledgeable as is possible and make as few mistakes
>like this as he can. We all make mistakes, and we can not be
>expert in all fields. But we shouldn't make too many errors or we
>won't convince anyone of our position. And we might end up
>driving away from the faith those who we most want to keep -- our
>young.
Actually I thought Phil's books was brilliant and will be a great
help to Christians realise the naturalistic underpinning of Darwinism.
GM>I am going to finish the whale section with a couple of
>quotes. Gish said (1985, p. 78),
>"There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record
> between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal
>ancestors."
>
GM>In light of the more detailed (and yet still amateur) treatment I
>gave the whales above, is Gish's statement true?
Well, you haven't proven any. At least to my satisfaction.
GM>Jim asked me to disprove Kurt. I don't have to disprove Kurt.
>Kurt agrees with me according to the article you are citing Look
>up to the first full paragraph on the page of your quote. Wise
>states (1994, p. 227).
>
>"Stratomorphic intermediate species and organismal groups
>should be a common feature of the fossil record. And
>examples of stratomorphic intermediates do exist. Mammal-
>like reptiles stand between reptiles and mammals, both in
>the position of their fossils and in the structure of their
>bones. The reptiles, and the phenacodontids, which stand
>between the horses and their claimed ancestors. In like
>manner, some fossil genera are stratomorphic intermediates
>in the group in which they are classified. They are the
>oldest fossils known in the group and most similar to the
>group from which they are supposedly descendent. Examples
>include Pikaia among the chordates, Archaeopteryx among the
>birds, Baragwanathia among lycopods, Ichthyostega among the
>amphibians, Purgatorius among the primates, Pakicetus among
>the whales and Proconsul among the hominoids."
Not really. Kurt says these are so few and far between that they could
just be random, or they could be the result of progressive creation.
GM>The only thing I disagree with Kurt in the above quotation is his
>contention that stratomorphic intermediates should be common. In
>light of his earlier quote which seems to demand morphing, which
>is not a valid demand, stratomorphic forms may not be as common
>as he wants them to be.
Sorry Glenn, but I agree with Kurt. There must have been trillions of
these transitional forms, yet we can only find a handful. It was not a
prediction of Darwinism (that's why Gould called it a "trade secret").
GM>The mathematical behavior of the
>nonlinear programs I have distributed show that it is much more
>likely that sudden change occurs than the morphing that Kurt
>wants. Morphing is an unreasonable expectation placed on the
>theory by creationists and Darwin, himself, but which new
>information shows is not the reality. Wise's demand for
>intermediate structures which Jim Bell quoted in his Friday post,
>is nothing more than a demand for morphing.
This just shows how flexible Darwinism is. It can predict both one
thing, and its opposite. Mathematical models do not even impress
Darwinists like Mayr and Maynard Smith.
>Jim wrote:
JB>You're wrong, according to Wise, who states: "None of the
>stratomorphic intermediates have intermediate structures." (TCH
>p. 227).>
>and then he concluded,
JB>Since we lack the step-by-step intermediates that would support
>such a conclusion (see Wise, above) why would we call this a
>transition at all?>>]
Agreed. How do we know it is a transition? It could be just an odd,
isolated branch off the main line.
GM>We would call the whale a transition because the intermediate
>fossils have both whale and mesonychid features in a mixture, and
>because Kurt whom you are quoting in support of your position,
>agrees that Pakicetus is a stratomorphic intermediate! (see my
>quotation of Wise above)
He does not mean that "stratomorphic intermediate" is the same as
"transitional form":
"Another class of fossil evidence comes in individual stratomorphic
intemediates. These are fossils that stand intermediate between the
group from which they are descendent and the one to which they are
ancestral-both in stratigraphic position and in morphology. They have
a structure that stands between the structure of their ancestors and
that of their descendants. However, they are also found in the fossil
record as younger than the oldest fossils of the ancestral group and
older than the oldest fossils of the descendent group." (Wise K.P.,
"The Origin of Life's Major Groups", in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", 1994, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p226)
Wise suggests that these because these "stratomorphic
intemediates" don't have intermediate structures, that they are just
mosaic forms that just happen to be in the right
stratigraphic order:
" It is merely the combination of structures that is intermediate, not
the structures themselves. Stephen Jay Gould calls the resultant
organisms "mosaic forms" 34 (Gould & Eldredge, "Punctuated Equilibria)
or "chimeras." As such they are really no more intermediate than any
other member of their group. In fact, there are many such "chimeras"
that live today (e.g., the platypus, which lays eggs like a reptile
and has hair and produces milk like a mammal). Yet these are not
considered transitional forms by evolutionists because they are not
found as intermediates in stratigraphic position." (Wise, p227)
GM>He also agrees that Ichthyostega is a
>stratomorphic intermediate for the fish/amphibian transition.
>Wise's expectations of a morphing series in the ideal transition
>is simply flawed. He is attempting to force onto nature and
>evolutionary theory, something that is not observed in nature and
>not required by evolutionary theory. Evolution needs mutations
>which alter morphology. There is no requirement that these
>mutations be of the morphing variety!
The "morphing" assumption is yours alone Glenn. Wise does not say
what you claim.
GM>Obviously, I can't cover every transition in the fossil
>record. So is it required that every transition have a complete
>set of fossils? No. If the earth is billions of years old, as I
>know Johnson believes and Wise doesn't, then it is to be expected
>that some fossils have been destroyed and some never fossilized.
Give it a break Glenn! There must have been trillions of these
transitional forms, if they existed. Even if only a tiny fraction of
fossils survived, these intermediates would be found.
GM>A complete index of all fossils will not be found nor is it to be
>expected. Secondly as I have noted, the mathematical behavior of
>iterative/mutational systems like my programs and like life, show
>that sudden change is possible.
They show nothing of the sort. They are just a model, not the real
thing. If such "sudden change" is possible every time you run the
program, why isn't "sudden change" happening constantly within nature?
GM>For Christians to expect every
>single transition to have an infinitude of morphing forms before
>they will consider accepting the concept of evolution, raises the
>bar so high that they will never be faced with such a choice.
Christians don't necessarily expect an "infinite morphing form". Those
is your words. I have never read those words in any creationist
literature. Mind you, some Darwinists seem to be saying that is in
fact what happened:
"Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the
explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been
proposed, for the existence of life's complex design. The whole book
has been dominated by the idea of chance, by the astronomically long
odds against the spontaneous arising of order, complexity and apparent
design. We have sought a way of taming chance, of drawing its
fangs...To 'tame' chance means to break down the very improbable into
less improbable small components arranged in series. No matter how
improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a Y in a single
step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally
graded intermediates between them. However improbable a large-scale
change may be, smaller changes are less improbable. And provided we
postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently finely graded
intermediates, we shall be able to derive anything from anything else"
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin, p317).
GM>In
>that situation, can such a person really be said to have made an
>objective or rational choice of which view to accept? Similarly,
>an atheist who wants the waters of Lake Champlain split before he
>accepts God, has done the very same thing, setting the bar so
>high that he will never have to face that choice either.
To date you have hardly raised the bar at all! <g>
>
>****Strategy****
>
GM>For over 130 years, the strategy conservative Christianity
>has taken with evolution has been to pick holes in it.
>"Evolution is wrong because....", you fill in the blank. It has
>not taken the tack of "We are correct because..." This approach
>reminds me of a couple of bullies in my home town. They used to
>sit on a ledge along a creek and through rocks at other kids who
>came along. Due to the height of their ledge, they could not be
>hit (or hit hard) with anything the children below could throw at
>them. Their rocks would gain speed as then fell upon any poor
>victim below the ledge. The victim's rocks would loose speed as
>they ascended. It was a beautiful position for the bullies; they
>could inflict harm with no risk of receiving harm.
While I don't defend everything that conservative Christianity
has done in the creation - evolution debate, it is still the
responsibility of a scientific theory to make good its claims and
defend itself against all-comers. You speak as though Darwinism was
some sacred cow. It is only a scientific theory.
GM>Conservative christians are content to sit on the ledge
>throwing rocks at the scientific theory, the scientific data, and
>even at the scientists (look how often their motives are
>questioned).
It cuts both ways, Glenn. Darwinists have not hesitated to attack
creationists and their motives:
"One Darwinist who says exactly this is Cornell University Professor
William Provine, a leading historian of science. Provine insists that
the conflict between science and religion is inescapable, to the
extent that persons who manage to retain religious beliefs while
accepting evolutionary biology "have to check [their] brains at the
church-house door" (Provine W., "Evolution and the Foundation of
Ethics",1988, MBL Science, Vol. 3, no. 1, pp25-29, in Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press,
Illinois, p126).
GM>But conservative christians do not apparently feel
>much of a need to actually advance a view which explain the data.
>Thus we can laugh at the small inconsistencies of the scientist's
>theory but never have to have our theories critiqued. Wise
>suggests an explanation for the fossil record (Wise, 1994, p.
>228):
>"Just as the more general order may be due to a pattern of
>a Creator's introduction or of the advance of a global
>flood, these few stratomorphic intermediates may be
>explainable in the same way. If, for example, the general
>order of the fossil record is due to introduction of
>organisms, then one might occasionally expect stratomorphic
>intermediates to have been created in the sequence between
>the two groups."
>
GM>What Wise is suggesting is that we explain everything in the
>fossil record as "God did it".
He does not say that at all. Wise is not discussing "everything in
the fossil". He says that transitional forms between major taxonomic
groups would also be evidence for theistic theories such as
progressive creation.
Besides, are not Darwinists saying that God didn't do it:
"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct
objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately
created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent
of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and
slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions...Some of
those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural
selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the
above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural
selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in
having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at
least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma
of separate creations." (Darwin C., "The Descent of Man", Modern
Library, Random House, NY, p56). "
GM>This explanation gets right to the
>core of the relation between God and Nature. Does God create a
>nature which can act independently of Him by His delegation of
>some of the activities?
It is not a Biblical position that "nature" acts "independently" of
God. The Biblical picture is that there is no such thing as "nature"
and God works through nature.
GM>Or must God do everything Himself by
>fiat? How far do we want to take this view? If we choose Wise's
>explanation then everything can be explained that way. The rock
>DOES fall according to the inverse square law because God,
>Himself, consistently moves it that way. Electrons follow the law
>V=IR because God consistently moves them in that fashion. This
>view is safe from criticism because "God did it."
Wise is not trying to explain "everything". Moreland says of
the Theistic Science model:
"Second, the model does not appeal to or attempt to explain in light
of God and his activities to cover our ignorance, but only when good
theological or philosophical reasons are present, such as when certain
theological or philosophical reasons would cause us to expect a
discontinuity in nature where God acted via primary causation (e.g.,
the origin of the universe, first life, basic "kinds" of
life).(Moreland J.P., "Theistic Science & Methodological Naturalism",
in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, Inter Varsity
Press, Illinois, p59)
Has it ever occurred to you that Wise and other creationists are
simply trying to understand the question of origins in light of the
theistic paradigm contained in the Bible? In their own way they are
trying to give due glory to God as Creator (Rev 4:11).
GM>In the transitions above with all these mixed-feature
>animals, the explanation "God created it that way" may be true,
>but it is the ultimate ad hoc explanation for anything and any
>difficulty. With this explanation, any difficulty no matter how
>pernicious, can be disposed of. Thus like most ad hoc
>explanations, it explains anything and everything and thus,
>nothing at all!
If in fact God *did* do it then it is the right explanation!
GM>It can not explain why the lobe-finned fish
>appear at just this stratigraphical level and Ichthyostega appear
>where they do. God just did it. No particular reason, that is
>just the way it is. It doesn't explain why ambulocetus has the
>same type of toes as the Mesonychids. No reason, God just did it
>that way. Ask Him!
This is a carricature:
"Johnson finds the commitment of scientists to totally naturalistic
explanations dogmatic and close-minded, but scientists have no choice.
Once they allow reference to God or miraculous forces to explain the
first origin of life or the evolution of the human species, they have
no way of limiting this sort of explanation. Why does the Earth have
a magnetic field, why do organisms use only laevo amino acids, why is
the savings and loan industry in such trouble? It is easy enough to
answer that these phenomena are all part of God's great plan, but in
the absence of some partially independent knowledge of God and His
intentions, such explanations are no less vacuous than the usual
parodies of the principle of survival of the fittest.
That is a caricature of theistic rationality, of course. Theists do
not throw up their hands and refer everything to God's great plan, but
they do recognize that attempts to explain all of reality in totally
naturalistic terms may leave out something of importance. Thus they
reject the routine non sequiturs of scientism which pervade the
Darwinist literature: because science cannot study a cosmic purpose,
the cosmos must have no purpose; because science cannot make value
judgments, values must be purely subjective; because science cannot
study God, only purposeless material forces can have been involved in
biological creation; and so on."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity
Press, Illinois, p210).
GM>This is not meant to denigrate the idea that God created the
>world (for He surely did that)
Well, do you not contradict yourself here Glenn? Why is this immune
from the charge of being an "ad hoc explanation"?
>or that He sustains it. But can
>he not delegate any process to his creation? Must He be not only
>the Prime Mover, but the ONLY mover?
Of course God *can* do it, but the question is *did* God do it? The
Bible does indicate that God created the living world within
boundaries called "kinds":
"Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation...according to their
various kinds" (Gn 1:11-12)
"God created the great creatures of the sea...according to their
kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind." (Gn 1:21)
"God made...all the creatures that move along the ground according to
their kinds." (Gn 1:25).
This does not rule out that natural processes were involved, but was
it *only* natural process? You say that "God created the world",
presumably based on Gen 1:1? Well The same word for "create" (Heb.
bara) is also used above for first animal life, specifically sea
creatures and birds. I realise Genesis 1 is not meant to be a science
textbook, but is it totally irrelevant? Is it not also God's
revelation with a timeless message? The theme of God creating order
out of chaos by setting clear boundaries in His creation is a
recurring theme in Genesis 1. Why should not this be reflected in the
living world at the higher taxonomic levels, especially since there
does seem to be major systematic gaps at those levels?
"This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals .... The earliest
and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic
ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous
sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is
so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is
speculative and much disputed...This regular absence of transitional
forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal
phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of
almost all classes of animals both vertebrate and invertebrate . . .
it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is
apparently also true of analogous categories of plants." (Simpson
G.G., "Tempo and Mode in Evolution", 1944, pp105,107, in Sunderland
L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems", rev. ed., 1988,
Master Book Publishers, El Cajon, CA, 80)
GM>The "God did it" theory may
>very well be correct. God certainly could do it however he wants;
>He could bring it into existence by the snap of a finger if He
>wanted. But let's face it, the universal success of such an
>apologetic is also its greatest weakness. That is not much of an
>apologetic in our scientific age or any age.
Continuing the caricature. I don't know of any creationists who claim
that "God did it" as a "universal..apologetic".
GM> If God placed us in
>this age to witness to the scientific and materialistic peoples
>we are surrounded by, our strategy is highly flawed.
On the other hand, is it the Biblical picture that we just adopt the
world-view of the "materialistic peoples we are surrounded by"?
GM>Liberal Christianity, on the other hand has taken the road
>that the Bible must be interpreted allegorically. While many of
>my dear Christian brother take this approach, I personally find
>it to rip the guts out of the historicity of the Scripture.
Why is not taking Genesis 1 seriously when it says God created
vegetation and animals "according to their various kinds", not
similarly denying "the historicity of the Scripture"?
GM>I
>know lots of people will disagree with me on this also. I see no
>break in the obviously historical part of Genesis with a supposed
>obviously allegorical part of Genesis except each individual's
>subjective judgement of where that line should be drawn. If the
>Bible is allegory at the point of the Fall (I mean who ever heard
>of a talking snake?) then what is there to keep the Bible from
>being allegorical at the point of the Virgin birth(there are no
>proven cases of this in humanity), or the resurrection of someone
>with the injuries Christ received? Maybe the miracles are just
>allegorical tales of Jesus being a good man but they really
>didn't happen? No, I must reject this approach as surely as I
>must reject the approach the conservatives whose theology I am
>most comfortable with.
Why do you allow God to intervene directly in salvation-history, but
not entertain the possibility that He might have intervened directly
in creation-history?
GM> The only other option is to create a historical/theological
>viewpoint which actually explains the data within a framework of
>a historical Genesis. This is the only long term, viable option.
>By the end of this summer, I am going to give up on finding a
>publisher for my book and sell the thing my self. In it I
>present just such a view which allows the Bible to be viewed as
>both true and historical but does not ignore data as outlined
>above. A young Christian can hold the view I advocate and no
>professor like my friend Will Provine would easily shake their
>faith by showing how the data presented by Christians isn't
>correct. I will not get into my view piecemeal any further than
>I already have on the reflector. The view is an organic whole
>and cannot be accepted piecemeal.
Nevertheless, it may be that your compromise position does not
adequately reflect true Biblical theism.
GM>But whether the view I am going to advocate is true or
>false, it is imperative that christian scholars develop a self-
>consistent viewpoint which upholds the Bible as true, but doesn't
>make us into nihilistic bullies who are always throwing rocks at
>the latest scientific findings, the motives of all scientists,
>and any theory which we find uncomfortable.
Does not also Kurt Wise and the other contributors to "The Creation
Hypothesis" attempt to do this too? I wouldn't exactly characterise
them as "nihilistic bullies"!
Is not being "uncomfortable" the criteria by which we make our
peace with science? Is not there always bound to be a high degree
discomfort between a theistic world-view and a non-theistic
world-view?
GM>Christianity was
>meant to be more than a destructive force, tearing down the
>intellectual works of others but never advancing a better view.
>Even lawyers like Johnson or Bell wouldn't go into court with
>only negative things to say about the prosecutions case against
>their client. They would attempt to advance some hypothesis that
>explains the data and makes it look like the butler did it rather
>than their client. Attacks against a view are much more
>effective when you can offer a workable alternative.
Continuing with the caricature. I would have thought the theistic
science program of "The Creation Hypothesis" was trying to advance a
"better (ie. theistic) view"? I would have thought that Progressive
Creation is a "hypothesis that explains the data".
GM>Today Christian apologetics sits on that ledge in my home
>town. When are we going to come down and do the work necessary
>to develop and then advance explanations of the data?
I suggest you read "The Creation Hypothesis" again, Glenn! <g>
Please don't take any of what I have read personally. I do believe
your position isn't sufficently theistic, but I do *not* think that
makes you
a lesser Christian than me. We all must personally give account to
Christ
for our thoughts, and only He knows our hearts. I recognise that it is
easier for non-scientists like me to not feel the force of scientific
arguments. Whether this a net advantage or disadvantage we will
probably
not know this side of heaven. I conclude with the words of Bernard
Ramm:
"The writer is not a theistic evolutionist. He is a progressive
creationist for he feels that in progressive creationism there is the
best accounting for all the facts-biological, geological, and
Biblical.
He has friends who are fiat creationists and theistic evolutionists.
Their respect for the Bible and their loyalty to Christ he admires.
But
progressive creationism is that theory of the relationship of God's
works and God's Holy Word which makes the most sense to the author-and
upon what other basis can he make up his mind?"
(Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955,
Paternoster, London, p205)
God bless.
Stephen