Stephen,
It looks like we're finding a lot of points of agreement, and our points
of "reasonable disagreement" are becoming more precisely defined. Thanks
for the time, care, and friendliness of your posts.
I asked you to provide a consistent theological/philosophical reason for
_expecting_ that the "discontinuities" (i.e. observational data which does
not fit well with our current "best" theoretical expectations) in the
development of higher biological taxa will _remain_ discontinuities as our
theories and data improve (and therefore provide evidence for supernatural
activity), while at the same time expecting that "discontinuities" in our
understanding of, for example, galactic formation, microevolution, and
zygotic development will probably be resolved in terms of a continuity of
natural mechanisms. You have done so to my satisfaction. I don't agree
100% with your line of reasoning (obviously :-), but it does make sense to
me.
A few loose ends:
> LH>It looks like we have a simple difference of opinion here
> >regarding our scientific intuitions (based on sketchy data). Since
> >neither of us are interested in pursuing this particular line any further
> >right now, I'll move on.
>
SJ> Agreed. I will continue to challenge TE on the discontinuities of
> nature as support for a PC type model of creation and development.
That's fair. :-) Time will tell how these discontinuities play out.
-----
> LH>Regarding this subject, I am grateful to Glenn Morton for pointing out
> >that when God created "genomic phase space" (which is itself a result of
> >the laws of chemistry, which are themselves a result of the fundamental
> >properties of atoms and nuleii, which are in turn a result of the basic
> >properties of the fundamental particles and forces), he created ALL
> >potentials genomes for ALL potential living organisms, INCLUDING the
> >potentail connective pathways (via mutation) between them.
>
SJ> I don't disagree with Glenn. But the question of whether God brought
> the *particular* organisms into being by a purely natural process or
> selected them specifically, is under debate.
It's under debate even _within_ the Theistic Evolution position. (And,
I'll bet, there's a certain latitude on this issue within Progressive
Creation, too -- i.e. just HOW "particular" do you mean?) I see this
question as a theological issue as to whether events which are described
by "natural laws" and "stochastic processes" are strongly _proscribed_ by
God, or whether they have a certain creaturely independence which is still
nevertheless dependent upon God for its continued existence. Of course,
I'm not sure whether that's really an either/or question. I AM sure that
I'm not going to try to tackle that one today.
-----------------------
Regarding what Genesis 1 teaches:
SJ> What it teaches is God and His acts in creation. Those acts are both
> supernatural and natural as I read Gn 1.
This is the biggest loose thread in our discussion, and may well be the
source of much of our final disagreement. I have said before that I see a
continuum between God's "miraculous" acts and his "ordinary" acts
describable by natural law. (Events such as receiving spiritual insight
as a result of prayer, or the seven years of abundance and famine in
Joseph's Egypt, falling somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum.)
You disagreed with this, and said that you see a strong distinction
between "supernatural" and "natural" acts. Could you elaborate on why you
believe it is important to make this distinction, and give some examples
of how you would classify some "borderline" examples? Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"LIFE: (noun) Any set of observables | Loren Haarsma
governed by Murphy's Law." | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
(--Phillip Spencer, 1992) |