On Mon, 14 Aug 1995 14:51:41 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: There is an important difference between (1) "refusing
to rule
>out" direct divine intervention in a process, and (2) actively
>advocating such a model.
>Stephen, regarding an exchange between David Tyler and myself, you wrote:
>
>SJ>Loren (changed)
>On Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:27:18 GMT you wrote:
>
>LH>"Second, there seems to be no sharp line between microevolution
>and macroevolution...genetic...differences between, say, sheep and goats
>...would...classify as microevolution. Even these are beyond the "limits"
>...induced by artificial breeding of animals. To call these
>"microevolution" is already somewhat of an extrapolation...
>SJ> ...It is common in creationist literature to accept micro-
>evolution (eg. Darwin's finches, Peppered Moth, etc), as explicable by
>natural causes, but not macro-evolution. Yet even some micro-evolution
>may not be 100% explicable by natural causes. I accept that Darwin's
>finches and the Peppered Moth are explicable by 100% natural causes,
>but am not so sure about others. Variation within species is empirically
>demonstratably but I am not so sure about the production of *all* new
>species or genera.
[...]
LH>I think we're in agreement about at least three things here: [1]
The
>level of genetic/mutational variation which humans have produced through
>artificial selection (or witnessed naturally within the space of recorded
>human history) is, in general, LESS than the level of variation commonly
>accepted (even by Recent Creationists and Progressive Creationists) as
>"microevolution." [2] If there really is a smooth progression from
>microevolution to macroevolution (e.g. if "proportional" genetic
>homologies are shown to extend beyond the family/genus levels to higher
>taxa), then it is inconsistent to claim that theoretical extrapolation is
>UNjustified beyond some _arbitrarily_ drawn line between "micro" and
>"macroevolution." (David Tyler correctly answered this point by saying
>that _if_ the genetic data really shows that there are certain Basic
>Types, with a "great gulf" between them, then such a cut-off line is
>warrantted.) [3] We cannot rule out God's direct intervention in
>microevolution or macroevolution.
Agreed. I am concerned theologically that I don't close my eyes to
what He might be doing in this world.
LH>Where we disagree, obviously, is: Given that biological evolution
cannot
>demonstrate 100% natural mechanisms, which model should we advocate?
This probably is more to do with our theological/philosophical
world-view.
Those who are strongly trained in scientific naturalism, might tend
towards
a more TE direction. Others might tend in a more overt supernaturalist
direction in one of the creationist models (eg. YEC, PC).
>SJ> As a Progressive Creationist I do not rule out direct divine intervention
>even in some so-called micro-evolution, until it can be demonstrated
>that a 100% natural mechanism exists in each case, that can get over
>the limits to variation that so evidently inhibits selective breeding
>in the real world.
LH>You are correct not to "rule out" God's direct activity; I would
not rule
>out God's direct activity even if a 100% naturalistic explanation WERE
>available.
Agreed. This is an important point. Somewhere I have read that the
Bible
even gives the outline of a naturalistic explanation (put about by the
Sanhedrin) for the Empty Tomb!
>But while it is one thing to refuse to "rule out" God's direct
>intervention -- it is quite another for Christians to ACTIVELY ADVOCATE
>(both "internally" within the church and "externally" in public debate)
>models which include supernatural activity as a detectable cause! While
>it is wise, prudent, and necessary for Christians to actively advocate
>"supernatural" models in events such as the history of Israel or certain
>kinds of human behavior, can the same be said for OTHER processes which
>"cannot demonstrate 100% natural mechanisms," such as asteroid motion,
>animal behavior, birth defects, or the origins of the AIDs epidemic?
This is a big problem. I think we should be sensitive to the
possibility
of God's intervention (AIDS might be among the judgements predicted
in Revelation), but I agree we cannot infallibly advocate it. Calvin's
example was to be reserved on these matters and prefer natural causes,
whereas Luther was more inclined to see supernatural causes.
I reiterate that I don't rule out 100% natural causes either, but it
does seem to me that naturalism has got a long way to go before it
can claim the same success in Biology as it has in Physics.
LH>The question has never been whether or not we should "rule out"
God's
>supernatural activity in biological history -- Theistic Evolutionists
>don't do that! The question is whether or not the model which we actively
>advocate, and which guides our research, should include supernatural
>activity as a detectable cause. Clearly, the inability to "demonstrate
>100% natural mechanisms" does not decide the question.
Agreed, but perhaps the question that TE's might need to ask
themselves
is, when they get to heaven, what if they find out that God did much
more supernaturally than their scientific research models ever
allowed, will they
feel regret at being too influenced by non-theistic thought?
This might seem a silly consideration to a scientist, but to me it is
an
overriding one. I strongly believe that "the whole world is under the
control
of the evil one" (1Jn 5:19) and therefore I try to train my thoughts
to
be resistant to naturalistic "just-so stories". :-)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------