> Glenn
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 1995 22:57:28 -0400 you wrote:
> GM>ABSTRACT: 1. This is my response to Ashby Camp's critique of my
> >whale transitional form post..
>
> SJ> the
> too brief time-frame of 10-15 million years to effect these
> massive transitions naturalistically
What is the alternative to a naturalistic change? Some time ago we had a
distinction made here (by Howard Van Till, if I remember correctly)
between Naturalism and naturalism. So, presumably, there might be
Naturalistic changes, naturalistic changes, and non-naturalistic ones.
How could we tell whether a change -- especially a biological change that
occurred in the distant past -- was naturalistic or non-naturalistic? Is
there any data or evidence that would distinguish between those two? Is
it all a matter of philosophical argument? Or of theology?
Suppose you knew for certain that God had directly intervened in some way
to effect a biological change? How could you possibly know that? Whould
there be any observable difference (i.e., any data or observations anyone
could adduce) that would show that this particular change was qualitaively
or quantitatively different from other biological changes in which God did
not directly intervene? Or are there no changes in which God does not
directly intervene? If that is so, does it also apply to all other
quasi-natural changes? And if that is so, is there then any difference,
other than a philosophical and theological one, between Naturalism (i.e.
atheistic naturalism) and Special Creationism?
I'm a non-biologist, so the biological arguments and data mostly slip by
me. But I was trained in philosophy and theology, and I still think that
most of the important stuff in these discussions is really philosophical
at bottom.
Lloyd Eby
leby@nova.umuc.edu