On Tue 20 Jun 1995 11:55 CT you wrote:
>Mark Phillips writes:
MC>Does PC fit the facts worse?
>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.
>
PC>PC fits the facts, but can not make any predictions of any kind.
"of any kind"? This is exaggeration. As far back as 1955 (ie. 20
years before Gould discovered PE), Ramm, a Progressive Creationist,
said:
"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)
But also there is a misunderstanding of what PC is. It is not a
scientific theory, but a high level model to relate the facts of
scripture and science.
>Go back to
>the mid70's and consider the situation in relation to the whale transition.
>Evolution predicted that there should be some type of transitional fossil with
>legs between the Mesonychids and the Whales.
Did they? Can you provide a quote that "Evolution" (ie. as a whole)
"predicted that there should be some type of transitional fossil with
legs between the Mesonychids and the Whales." THis is not to say they
didn't (I don't know enough about the details and they might have had
better evidence that I am aware of). But I would like to test Glenn's
claim nevertheless. AFAIK evolution is not very good at making exact
predictions and there are many, many examples where things have not
turned out as evolutionists predicted or hoped.
>What could PC predict about this
>morphological gap? While evolutionists could not tell you precisely what you
>would find, they could tell you the broad outlines, i.e. a critter with both
>mesonychid and cetacean features which had four feet.
Well, it isn't PC's business to make such detailed predictions. I've
never read in any PC literature that PC makes any such
detailed predictions, one way or the other.
Edward J. Carnell, an early PC, claimed that the gaps were at the
higher taxonomic levels, eg. orders:
"It is conceivable, then, that the 'orders' of the paleontologist
correspond to the `kinds' of Genesis" but he adds "Whether the 'kinds'
of Genesis correspond exactly to the orders of science, only further
exhaustive research can tell us. The Bible simply sets forth natural
divisions; it is the job of the scientist to locate them."
(Carnell E.J., "An Introduction to Christian Apologetics", 1948,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p239-240)
>The problem PC has with prediction of what should be found in the
>fossil record is that we can not possibly know what God would or
>would not have created.
PC is by defintion concerned with the origin of *new basic kinds*.
This is the same problem that the evolutionists and theistic
evolutionist has. Could evolutionistsif they had never seen a whale?
>Most predictions from most creationists of
>the time was that there was a gap which would never be filled.
This confuses PC with FC (fiat creationists). The latter may make make
detailed predictions at the species level, but to my knowledge PC's
don't.
>What happened? The evolutionist prediction was fulfilled; they found
>ambulocetus. The PC position was not harmed because the theory of PC didn't
>predict that there would be no critter like ambulocetus only the advocates of
>PC predicted that. Thus, PC can accept any piece of finding at all and never
>be harmed, but it can not tell you what will be found in the future.
Again, this is a misunderstanding of PC. It is more a higher level
model of *creation* than it is a theory of science. Most PC's are
Biblical theologians, not scientists. Their orientation is to
Biblical theism, not naturalistic science. PC's main aim is to relate
the higher level Bibical picture of God developing His world by
successive acts of creation (Gen 1), with genuine scientific
discoveries. If science discovers that there is indeed a genealogical
link between land mammals and whales, or between primates and man,
then PC will accept it. That of course does not mean that PC
necessarily accepts that the process was entirely non-supernatural.
Indeed, as far as the presumed land mammal to whale transition, PC
would note the following problems, and would doubt that naturalistic
mechanisms for accounting for most them can even be imagined, let
alone discovered:
"D. Dewar, a leading anti-evolutionist in the 1930s, challenged his
zoological colleagues to provide detailed blueprints of intermediate
forms:
`But I do not challenge evolutionists to make sketches of actual
ancestors of the whales. I ask for drawings of skeletons of possible
intermediates. So far no one has taken up my challenge. Mr Arnold
Lunn is more fortunate. It is recorded ("Science and the
Supernatural" by Lunn and Haldane, p 320) that in response to this
challenge Professor J.B.S. Haldane pleaded that he is not a good
sketcher, but that his drawings would be rather like caricatures of
dugongs and seals. Now the dugong, being as well adapted to swimming
with the tail as the whale, can scarcely be called an intermediary
between the latter and a land mammal. The seal, although adapted to
existence both on land and in water, is not anatomically intermediate
between a whale and a land animal. Let us notice what would be
involved in the conversion of a land quadruped into, first a seal-like
creature and then into a whale. The land animal would, while on land,
have to cease using its hind legs for locomotion and to keep them
permanently stretched out backwards on either side of the tail and to
drag itself about by using its fore-legs. During its excursions in
the water, it must have retained the hind legs in their rigid position
and swim by moving them and the tail from side to side As a result of
this act of self-denial we must assume that the hind legs eventually
became pinned to the tail by the growth membrane Thus the hind part of
the body would have become like that of a seal. Having reached this
stage, the creature in anticipation of a time when it will give birth
to its young under water, gradually develops apparatus by means of
which the milk is forced into the mouth of the young one, and
meanwhile a cap has to be formed round the nipple into which the snout
of the young one fits tightly, the epiglottis and laryngeal cartilage
become prolonged downwards so as tightly to embrace this tube, in
order that the adult will be able to breath while taking water into
the mouth and the young while taking in milk These changes must be
effected completely before the calf can be born under water Be it
noted that there is no stage intermediate between being born and
suckled under water and being born and suckled in the air. At the
same time various other anatomical changes have to take place, the
most important of which is the complete transformation of the tail
region. The hind part of the body must have begun to twist on the
fore part, and this twisting must have continued until the sideways
movement of the tail developed into an up-and-down movement. While
this twisting went on the hind limbs and pelvis must have diminished
in size, until the latter ceased to exist as external limbs in all,
and completely disappeared in most, whales.'
(Dewar D., "More Difficulties of the Evolution Theory", Thynne & Co.,
London, pp23-4, in Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985,
Burnett Books, p217-218)
GM>Now, quantitative predictions are not always necessary for a
>science. Science can not predict the quantitative location of a
>particular electron next year. This does not mean that physics is
>useless or that Schrodinger was wasting his time.
GM>You outline two models first evolution then PC then write:
>"Is there any reason to reject the latter model in favour of the
>former (other than an appeal to symmetry between 1 and 2)?"
>I can think of a theological reason for rejecting the latter, PC
>model. The Scripture says that God created things in 7 days. I know
>the arguments that the days can be periods of time, the plain fact is
>that long periods of time do not have evenings and mornings.
This is a simplistic argument worthy of the best YEC! <g> I have
never thought of the 7 days of creation as "long periods of time". To
me it seems almost self-evident that they are God-days, expressed
anthropomorphically in a framework of a human working week. God
actually inhabits eternity (Isa 57:15), so it is theologically absurd
to imagine Him actually working to an earthly time-table.
>Thus the PC view must make the Bible not say what I believe it IS
>saying.
It also says at the end of the same account that "God rested" (Gn
2:2-3). Do you take this literally too, Glenn?
>We don't talk about the evening and morning of the Cretaceous
>Period, nor the evening and morning of the Mesozoic Era. The
>language doesn't fit long ages. The creative acts took place on
>single days.
Agreed. The question is, whether God intended they be understood as
literal 24-hour solar days or God-days expressed by analogy as a human
working week. There is much internal evidence in the text itself (and
in comparison with Gn 2) that indicates quite clearly that they were
not understood as literal 24-hour solar days. Indeed, if you sit back
and close your eyes, and imagine God actually starting at sunrise and
knocking off at sunset. Apart from the fact that to God it is never
dark (Ps 139:12), it would be day on the other side of the world, and
days and nights are 6 months long at the poles!
>Secondly, God must have engaged in tens of thousands of creative acts
>over the years, so what is this stuff about creation being done in
>seven events/acts/days or periods? How do you divide the geologic
>ages into seven periods? On what evidence? PC raises some thorny
>and unaswered questions.
These problems are just straw men, probably arising out of your YEC
background, Glenn! <g> Even FC doesn't claim the events mentioned in
the 6 days are exhaustive. To PC Gn 1 is simply saying that God
created progressively over time the entire world as we know it.
GM>Why must God be limited to creating each species rather than
>creating a system which can in turn produce the varieties? I love
>those wave tanks you can buy in which blue water lies under clear
>mineral oil. The motor causes the tank to tip back and forth
>producing waves. The creator of this time-waster could have come to
>my office and created each individual wave form me if he wanted to,
>but other customers would want him to do the same for them. He
>solved his difficulty by attaching a motor which would produce each
>different wave. In a very real sense, he is the creator of each wave
>even though he is nowhere in sight. Why must we limit God to
>standing in the office?
Glenn, I expected to find a <g> or a :-) after this, but I think you
are actually serious! Do you really believe that PC's claim that God
directly and individually created "each species"? As far as I know,
not even the most enthusiastic YEC claims that, let alone PC's. I
wonder if you have ever read any PC books?
I repeat, PC (as far as I understand it) is not meant to be a low
level scientific theory, making detailed predictions. It is (at least
at this stage of its development) a higher level model that tries to
relate the Biblical data regarding creation and providence with the
relevant scientific facts. It works on the basic assumption that the
two books of God, the Bible and nature, have the one Author and hence
must ultimately agree. Rammm sums it all up for me:
"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