On Thu, 06 Jul 1995 19:15:38 +0930 you wrote:
Good post. I won't comment on the "degrees of freedom" argument,
because I lack any mathematical background.
MP>Are there any theological reasons to support PC?
>[...]
>If a "supernatural" explanation is neccessary to understand
>Jesus being raised from the dead (and countless other miracles), then
>it seems quite natural to think that creation of life had a
>supernatural component also.
Yes. And perhaps the origin of new designs?
MP>Just as our observance of lots of linear relationships in the world
>leads us to think that linear interpolation might be a good thing to
>do, so too, our observance of supernatural miracles in the world and
>in scripture can lead us to think that Progressive Creation might be a
>good model.
Agreed. What I find difficult to understand is how those TE's who
claim to believe in the supernatural intervention of God, eg. origin
of universe, origin of life, origin of man, birth of Jesus, etc., can
apparently rule it out apriorily as a factor in the origin of life's
major groups and/or designs.
>[...]
MP>I agree that PC and TE seem to fit the data equally well...It may
>be that biological evolutionary theory achieves a firm empirical
>grounding - but it hasn't done so yet. Let's not jump the gun.
Yes. No one would be arguing if evolution was as firmly grounded as
other sciences. Most Christians have no trouble accepting even quite
complex scientific theories, eg. Relativity. The argument that
evolution is not accepted because it hurts human pride is not
sustainable. Many Christians have no problem with Freud's theories
about an unconscious primitive id and sexual motivation, etc. The
reason why many Christians (and even non-theists like Taylor,
Hitching, Denton, Hoyle, etc) don't accept evolution is that it
doesn't seem to hold water in its major claims.
MP>There are theological arguments suggesting that PC might be right,
>not conclusive perhaps, but reason enough for not discarding PC
>prematurely.
PC is just a model. It is not an exact scientific theory (not yet
anyway). It is in its infancy compared to evolution and at this stage
is flexible to accommodate new facts, just like TE. It is part of an
overall Intelligent Design argument that is gaining ground, because of
the failure of materialistic-naturalism to account for the amazing
degree of design apparent in the universe and life in particular.
MP>Naturalistic evolutionists have overplayed their hand - this should
>be pointed out. Let us not be guilty of the same by dismissing
>evolution without due cause, but let us also be honest about the
>exact state of knowledge about origins, and not feel pressured to
>jump one way or the other unless there are good reasons to do so.
Agreed. Christians should be honest before the evidence that
science uncovers. However, they should distinguish between the
evidence and the interpretations placed on that evidence.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------