On Sat, 24 Jun 1995 13:24:57 -0400 you wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>"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.<
GM>How about the Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1982, prior to the
>discovery in the early 1990's of Ambulocetus.
>They state:
>"All that can be stated with certainty is that the ancestors of the
>protocetids must have evolved through an amphibious stage." Vol 19 p. 809
>What does this mean? A look at mammals which are engaged in an amphibious
>lifestyle now are the seal, walrus and otter.All have feet although modified
>in the case of seals and walrus'.
Well, this does not say what you said. Where is the mention of
"Mesonychids"? The fact that evolution predicted that a land-mammal
evolved through an "amphibious" stage to a whale is not news. As
Johnson and Denton point out, Dewar was challenging Darwinists re this
prediction in the 1930's.
What was news was your claim that in "the mid70's...Evolution
predicted that there should be some type of transitional fossil with
legs between the *Mesonychids* and the Whales". If they did not
predict this as advertised then your argument about the alleged
predictive power of evolution is somewhat dented.
GM>I wrote:
>Most predictions from most creationists of
>the time was that there was a gap which would never be filled.
>
>Stephen replied
SJ>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.
GM>OK, it's your turn. I know of no predictions on the existence of
>any species or morphology made by either PC or FC. While you say PC
>doesn't make predictions, which agrees with my original point, can
>you cite any FC prediction?
Actually I was referring to *your* quotes of FC authors, ie. Gish (?)
Morris?
GM>I wrote:
>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.
>Stephen replied
SJ>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>No, they are not straw men arising out of my YEC background. The
>issue arises from my view of epistemology. If you say that a rock
>falls according to x=-1/2*g*t*t, then I can go into the lab and check
>you out within the errors of my measurment ability. I can then state
>"As far as I can tell this statement is true" or "This statement is
>definitely false" If you state that you went to the grocery store
>yesterday, the I can go interview the employees of the store and
>determine if you were there or not. That statement about your visit
>to the grocery store is either true or false.
Agreed.
GM>Fuzzy logic does not apply here. If God says, "I created the world
>in seven days" then that statement, like the statement is either true
>or false. Even if you substitute 'ages' for 'days' the statement
>still has a nonfuzzy logic standard of truth. Either he did it in
>seven ages/days/acts or he didn't.
Well that's just the point. Does God actually say "I created the
world in seven days"? Or does he use 7 days as a literary framework?
And I at least don't say it was in 7 "ages" either. I am not a
day-ager and never have been. To me it seems quite clear they are
God-days (Ps 90:4 2Pet 3:8), expressed analogically in the framework
of a man's working week. It seems to me as absurd to think that God
really worked for seven literal days (or even ages), as to imagine
that He really needed rest.
GM>PC, it seems to me, falsifies all views of that statement. You
>suggest that Carnell might be correct that the 'kinds' are orders.
>The problem with thisis that different orders of life appear many,
>many more times than at seven different times in the fossil record.
>So please define for me what the seven refers to.
As I said, even FC's don't see the "kinds" of Gen 1 as exhaustive.
Also see above re 7 "ages" (which I don't believe in).
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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"?
GM>Stephen, if you are going to jump into an exchange between Mark
>Phillips and I, please understand what both parties are talking
>about. Mark made the suggestion that God individually made each
>species (at least that is what I understood him to say). I pointed
>out to him that that was more like TE than PC. I know perfectly well
>what PC says
OK. Sorry if I misunderstood. I will await Mark's reply.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>"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.
>
GM>Then you agree with my criticism of PC?. It makes no predictions.
>At least we agree here. I fully agree that the Bible and Nature
>must be able to be joined into one view.
I said it made no "detailed predictions". It's major prediction made
in 1948-1955 (ie. before Gould's PE and Creation-Science) was that the
major gaps in the fossil record would remain. I am not an expert on
PC.
However, to show my good faith, the following predictions I would
suggest would flow from the basic PC idea of God creating directly
over time:
1. Inability of naturalistic mechanisms to fully account for the
origin of life
2. Progression of order from simple to complex in fossil record
3. Sudden appearances of major new body plans
4. Fully formed, ie. lack of nascent structures (eg. 1/2 arm -
1/2 wing, etc)
5. Large systematic gaps in the fossil record persisting
6. Inability of naturalistic mechanisms to explain satisfactorily
formation of complex organs (eg. eye, ear, bat, etc)
7. Transitional forms extremely rare, but not non-existent.
Note that some transitional forms may be found under PC because PC
doesn't necessarily claim that a Creator has to create all at once. It
is quite feasible to imagine God directly intervening a number of
times over a geological instant (say 50,000 years) to achieve His
objectives. Also a Creator could use natural processes and even
pre-existing genetic material.
The above are off the top of my head and other PC's may add or
subtract from them. They are unashamedly God-of-the gaps type
arguments becuase it is the same argument Jesus used (Jn 10:38;
14:11) to distinguish natural from supernatural acts.
May I suggest that PC fits the facts quite well. It is probably
similar to PE, except for 1 and 6. IMHO 1 and 6 tends to falsify NE.
Prediction 7 distinguishes it from FC. A genuine transitional series
(eg. fish-amphibia or land mammal-whale) would falsify FC.
PE would tend to be falsified by either: a) better evidence closing
gaps
and making naturalistic mechanisms more feasible; or b) really
plausible
theoretical models explaining how naturalistic mechanism can account
for gaps.
As TE moves towards a PE mechanism then it probably becomes (in terms
of predictions) indistinguishable from PC. Or is TE not tied to the
success or failure of NE/PE? Come to think of it, what does TE
predict that is different from NE/PE?
GM>If you feel comfortable with PC that is fine. But until you can
>tell me what the seven refers to I fail to see that there has been a
>successful union of Scripture and Science here.
Sorry Glenn. If you can't accept that they are simply based on man's
working week, then perhaps you better ask the Pope? Or wait till we
get to Heaven! <g>
God bless.
Stephen