On Thu, 22 Jun 1995 18:47:49 -0500 you wrote:
>Mark, you wrote,
MP>..evolution, as it stands, has very little predictive power.
>
>and
MP>The only way to give evolution more predictive power is to add
>..."small changes in genotype lead to small changes in phenotype".
>But this is an unsubstantiated claim...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..PC would be just
>as likely to predict the ambulocetus as evolution.
>So surely, evolution as it stands, is no more predictive than PC?
>
SC>On the basis of predictive ability, which of the following would
>you classify as science and why?
>meterology
>economics
>astrology
>phrenology
I suggest that it is difficult to demarcate which fields are "science"
without a clear definition of "science". The problem is that too rigid
a definition (eg. to exclude creation-science, etc), often excludes
areas that are regarded as legitimate science.
I don't necessarily share Mark's views that PC is good at predicting.
AFAIK it has never tried! I see PC as a high-level model to relate
Biblical and scientific data. It may be that in the future, as
theistic
science is more developed, that PC will become better at predicting
outcomes. In general I believe PC better accounts for the
discontinuities
of nature than evolution. Of course evolution is being modified to try
to better fit the discontinuities, but I don't believe it will be
wholly
successful. The fundamentally idea behind evolution is continuity,
whereas behind creation it is discontinuity. While some gaps are
being filled, yawning chasms remain.
SC>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?
If science is defined naturalistically, then TE and PC don't fit at
all.
>You stated,
MP>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".
>
SC>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.
It may be we will never be able to find out exactly how God might
have created the universe, life and life's major groups. Evolution
already accepts it will never see macro-evolution in action. Science
is already facing limits to its knowledge at the micro- and
macro-levels (eg. first instants of the Big Bang, etc).
Surely the point is that if God did create some things directly, then
naturalistic science, which at its worst denies and at its best
ignores, the existence of a Creator-God, is by definition never going
to find out.
SC>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.
This sounds like a bit of standard naturalistic mythology. This says
nothing about Christianity, but simply reflects pre-scientific
thinking generally. To contrast "Christians" and "geologists" is too
simplistic. Before the 19th century, "geologists" were probably
"Christians" too! There is nothing in the Bible that says that we
should not study earthquakes. Much of this was probably medievalist
thinking based more on Scholastic philosophy than Christianity.
SC>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.
This is trivialising the issue. No one is claiming that earthquakes
are a unique *creation* event. All PC's claim is that the type of
major creation events depicted in Genesis 1, may have been: a) a
direct intervention by God; and b) progressive over time. This is the
clear impression that the passage has given to Jewish and Christian
believers through all generations, leaving aside secondary issues
of literary form such as whether the days were 24-hours, etc.
SC>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?
Agreed, providing there is no naturalistic caveat that the very idea
of God creating progressively is outside of science and hence
inadmissable.
SC>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.
Evolution may be "useful", especially at the micro-level. But if God
did in fact create the universe, life and life's major groups, then
the answers that evolution may seem to provide, will be misleading.
PC would argue that there should be no apriori limitation on science
restricting it to purely naturalistic mechanisms particularly in the
question of origins. Moreland says:
"the (theistic science) 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)
God bless.
Stephen