>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.
First I should mention that I find it hard to follow everything that
is said as it take up copious amounts of time. So please forgive me
if I don't follow up on everything - I do my best with the time
I have available (and probably a bit extra besides).
I should also mention that I am not a hardened supporter of either TE
or PC. What I have been trying to discover in these discussions is
the strengths and weaknesses of different positions. To do this I
may come over as supporting a particular position more strongly than
I really do support it.
I must confess that I don't have a thorough grasp of exactly what the
position of PC entails. I think I have an intuitive understanding of
the range of possible positions, but I haven't quite matched these
intuitions with the correct names. Feel free to enlighten me if
I misuse any of these labels.
As for what I was suggesting...
I was not suggesting that God individually made each species (this being
the biological definition). Indeed, I was rather vague, saying,
"why not allow Progressive Creationists to make the claim: 'God
formed the animals by taking one animal and slightly modifying
it to form another.'"
I was suggesting that at various points of time (unspecified) during the
creation of the animals, God could have formed a new animal by
supernaturally modifying an old animal. Whether you call these time
points the creation of a new species or a new kind or whatever is really
beside the point (I think). Perhaps this model of creation isn't quite
the same as PC - I thought it was but I might be wrong. If so, what
would it be called?
>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.
It seems to me from what Stephen Jones has said, that PC is an umbrella
for a range of possible theories. Perhaps what I was doing is describing
_one_ theory living under the umbrella of PC? We observe that animals,
though different, share many things in common. Some animals are more
similar than others. Some body parts seem to play more of a role in some
animals than others. Evolutionists make these observations and jump to
the conclusion that new animals came from old animals through a genetics
driven natural selection process. A theory compatible with PC would say
that new animals came from old animals through a supernatural
modification of one animal into another at various points in history.
Evolutionists suggest that between two animals A and C, we might be able
to find an intermediate B. If we did, it would be morphologically
somewhere inbetween A and C. Those who hold to my PC alternative would
suggest that between two animals A and C, God may have created C through
a sequence of supernatural creations, starting at A. We might then be
able to find an intermediate B, which, just as with evolution, would be
morphologically somewhere inbetween A and C. Evolution postulates a
purely genetics driven creation process, whereas my PC alternative
postulates supernatural "boosters" at many key points in the creation
process. Does this fit under the PC umbrella?
So long as the relationship between genetics and morphology remains
poorly understood, I do not see how evolution can have any more
predictive power than my (possibly misnamed) PC alternative.
>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.
But am I right in thinking that it doesn't spell out exactly how
large a gap would be. That is, it proposes that there are
significant gaps, but given what appears to be a large gap,
it may be that it actually represents two smaller gaps. The
"intermediate" defining the boundary between the two smaller
gaps would be morphologically similar to the animals either side
of the large gap.
>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
But does it not also allow for a significant degree of similarity
of 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.
Why does it say that transitional forms would be rare?
>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.
What does PE stand for? And what is it?
Yours in Christ,
Mark Phillips.