On Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:09:17 +0930 you wrote:
MP>Glenn and Stephen are in disagreement about the merits of
>Progressive Creation. Glenn claims that Evolution has more
>explanatory power than Progressive Creation and thus should be
>considered the prefered model. I am questioning whether the
>explanatory power is actually all that different. If it is, I would
>like to nail down exactly why.
>Glenn wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>I would have thought that Progressive Creation is a "hypothesis
>that explains the data".
GM>Can you tell me one prediction which PC makes that would allow me
>to look at the scientific data and determine that PC fits the facts
>better.
MP>Does PC fit the facts worse?
My argument is that PC fits the scientific facts at least as well as
TE and fits the Biblical facts better.
In fact I believe it fits the scientific facts of sudden appearance
and stasis better than TE, but since TE is now moving from aligning
itself with Neo-Darwinism towards Punctuated Equilibria, this is not
as clear as it once was. In 1948 and 1955 (well before PE) theologians
Carnell and Ramm proposed PC. For example:
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical
radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to
several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the
unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal
radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the
theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps
because vertical progress takes place only by creation."
(Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955,
Paternoster, London, p191)
Note this was 20 years before Gould & Eldredge proposed Punctuated
Equilibria. Of course PE is not accepted by many Neo-Darwinists (eg.
Dawkins). Note also that Glenn rejects "morphing" and seems to
support some form of saltationism, ie. jumps. Note also that Terry
believes if the tape of life was re-run life would turn out the same,
which seems to indicate some form of direct intervention?
As to the Biblical facts, I have already posted leading evangelical
theologian and philosopher Carl F.H. Henry's claim that "evolution"
is at root a Greek pantheistic concept and is therefore opposed to
Hebrew-Biblical theism.
At the end of his 5 models Erickson concludes:
"...theistic evolution (seems) a less viable position than progressive
creationism. While the latter view is not totally without
difficulties, it does a better job of explaining and integrating the
biblical and scientific data, and therefore must be considered more
adequate than theistic evolution." (Erickson M.J., "Christian
Theology", 1985, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, pp483-484)
Of course the above assessment depends on one's view of the Bible and
ultimately on one's view of God and whether He intervenes directly in
the world.
MP>Can one really make quantitative predictions using evolutionary
>theory? On a micro-change level perhaps you can??? But on a larger
>scale I would have thought genetics and "the relationship between DNA
>and functionality" is not sufficiently well understood to make any
>realistic quantitative predictions. (I would be very interested to
>know if I am wrong.)
See the recent discussion on the failure of Bak's sandpile at the
Santa Fe Institute. I quoted from this article:
"Can we model Darwin? Per Bak, Henrik Flyvbjerg and Kim Sneppen
PHYSICS has been immensely successful in finding mathematical
laws that help it describe the Universe. All matter obeys
Einstein's equations of general relativity. The way elementary
particles interact are described mathematically by the
Standard Model. And Schrodinger's equation describes atoms,
their nuclei, chemical compounds, crystals and many other
states of matter. Even the life and death of stars have well
established formulas.
But when it comes to the most complex system, mathematics has so far
failed. Life on Earth involves a myriad species interacting with each
other in ways that constantly change as they evolve, differentiate and
become extinct. There are no "Darwin's equations" to describe the
evolution of life on Earth into complex, interacting ecologies.
(Bak P., et al, "Can we model Darwin?", New Scientist, 12 March 1994,
p36).
MP>Surely the best we can say is that:
>1. evolutionary "survival of the fittest" occurs at a micro level
>and explains well how viruses and bacteria change.
>2. it seems reasonable that evolutionary "survival of the fittest"
>_could_conceivably_ explain the emergence of different species in
the fossil record.
One needs to be clear on what one means by "species". A biological
"species" is determined by reproductive isolation. It is quite clear
that at a micro-level speciation by this definition occurs (eg, snails
no longer breed with similar snails, etc). But whether the same
micro-evolutionary mechanisms can lead to large-scale changes (eg.
reptile ->bird) has never been established and some (eg. Gould) deny
that macro-evolution is micro-evolution extrapolated.
MP>But is 2 actually what happens. Consider the following model:
>1. (as above)
>2. it seems reasonable that progressive creation "sequential
>miracles" _could_conceivably_ explain the emergence of different
species in the fossil record.
Of course "sequential miracles" could easily explain the *large-scale*
changes in the fossil record. But one does not have to postulate huge
miracles. An Intelligent Designer could easily influence heredity and
environment at a very subtle level to accomplish large changes in a
comparatively short time. It really is the same argument that Darwin
based his Origin of Species on, ie. artifical selection. It is
really the same argument that Dawkins based his Biomorphs computer
model on, and what origin of life researchers implicitly need to get
anything to happen. All PC claims is that God intervened *directly*
in biological history (just as He has in salvation-history). The
amount of intervention and the time-frame (eg. instantaneous or not?)
is unimportant.
MP>Is there any reason to reject the latter model in favour of the
>former (other than an appeal to symmetry between 1 and 2)?
Despite good evidence for evolution put up by TE's Terry (Vitamin C in
all primates) and Glenn (whale transitions), Darwinists have no viable
naturalistic mechanisms that demonstrate large-scale changes.
Their mutation + natural selection is adequate to explain small-scale
changes, but not large-scale ones. Hence the hope that complexity
theory might provide an answer.
I recently posted the following major discontinuitoes in the living
world to to a lurking member of the Reflector:
1. There are major discontinuities in the living world, at the "lower
level", ie. nonliving - living, unicellular - multicellular,
multicellular-plants, multicellular-invertebrate. AFAIK science
cannot demonstrate (or even imagine) how these gaps could be bridged
by natural processes.
2. There are other major discontinuities among plants. This does not
receive much attention because of the focus on vertebrates leading to
man. Botanist Prof. Corner of Cambridge says that "the fossil record
of plants is in favour of special creation."
3. There are discontinuities among vertebrates, eg. fish -
amphibia, amphibia - reptile, reptile - bird, reptile - mammal. It
may be that there are transitional forms which may prove common
ancestry. On the other hand there is also evidence for parallel
evolution. Even if transitions can be proved between these divisions,
that would not prove it was macro-evolution. To do that it would
be necessary to demonstrate a plausible naturalistic mechanism, which
has not yet been done.
4. There are major discontinuities in the development of complex
organs, such as the feather, wing, eye, ear, brain. Gould says there
is an "absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between
major transitions in organic design" and indeed there is an
"inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional
intermediates".
In view of the above, I agree with 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
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------