As I understand it, geneticists only have
>a small understanding about how genotype changes affect the phenotype, thus
>evolution, as it stands, has very little predictive power.
and
>The only way to give evolution more predictive power is to add to your
>theory something like the assertion "small changes in genotype lead to small
>changes in phenotype". But this is an unsubstantiated claim - it is not
>backed up by a biological-mechanistic justification. If you allow
>evolutionists to make this claim, why not allow Progressive Creationists to
>make the claim: "God formed the animals by taking one animal and slightly
>modifying it to form another". With this addition to the theory of
>Progressive Creationism, PC would be just as likely to predict the
>ambulocetus as evolution.
>
>So surely, evolution as it stands, is no more predictive than PC?
On the basis of predictive ability, which of the following would you
classify as science and why?
meterology
economics
astrology
phrenology
I submit that economics and meteorology are as predictive as astrology, but
the former two, not the latter two are legitimately considered science.
While science may not accurately predict human behavior in economics, or
where the next lightening bolt will strike, the properties of these fields
are amenable to our understanding. This is not so for astrology or
phrenology which have had their day in the court of science. It was deemed
impossible to explain the basis for these "phenomena". So, they are neither
predictable nor understandable and not in the realm of science. Where would
you think TE and PC would fit?
You stated,
If you allow
>evolutionists to make this claim, why not allow Progressive Creationists to
>make the claim: "God formed the animals by taking one animal and slightly
>modifying it to form another".
This claim of PC is valid, but the results are no different than what you'd
get from evolution. So the big difference between TE and PC is whether you
are satisfied with the explanation that "God formed the animals by taking
one animal and slightly modifying it to form another" or whether you want to
see if you can find out how God might have done this.
Some time ago, Christians felt more comfortable with using science to
explore God's created universe, but then natural science was largely
descriptive. As the study of biology, geology, and other parts of nature
became more mechanistic, Christians balked. For instance, up until the 19th
century, Christians were satisfied with the capriciousness and
unpredictability of earthquakes, thinking that they were the result of God's
divine intervention in the affairs of the world. They fought attempts of
geologists working to understand the natural causes of the phenomenon. Note
that even though we have good understanding of the causes of earthquakes,
this information doesn't really exclude the possibility that they may still
be due to God's intervention. Your stand that evolutionary data can be
better explained by PC, is similar to the earthquake analogy. You are
satisfied saying that God did it and stopping there. Why not pursue the
matter further to see if we can learn how God did it? Evolution, in part or
parcel, may or may not provide some answers, but it useful to have a theory
to test--especially since alternative mechanistic theories are not available.
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "It is the glory of God to conceal a
Madison, WI 53792 matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter."
____________________________________________________________________________