(a) Not all of evolution involves chance events. If laws governing
the evolution of a system are highly sensitive to initial conditions
then it seems feasible at least that a significant amount of evolution
would be determined by laws+initial conditions. Also, if there exist
so-called "strange attractors" then it seems reasonable that
transient "random" events may not disturb the course of evolution
as set up by the initial conditions. Yes, yes, wild speculation :).
(b) I forgot what (b) was, must be late ;-).
The second case may actually be progressive creation depending on how the
outcome is being "controlled", for example controlling the outcome by
supplying just the right mutation at just the right moment would be
progressive creation as far as I'm concerned.
[...]
Loren:=============
>
>It seems there are two PC's. In one, God sets up the conditions and
>nature finds its own way. (In other words, God waits for stellar
>evolution to provide a suitable planet on which to introduce life.) In
>the other, God is controlling the outcome, so that the tape of
>stellar/planetary evolution, if re-run, comes out the same.
>
Case one seems to me to be theistic evolution. Case two would depend,
IMHO, on how the controlling is done. If by finely tuned natural
law and precisely specified initial conditions then this would be TE,
otherwise PC.
[...]
>------------------------
>
>Comment 2: As for re-playing the tape of life, there are at least THREE
>TE positions. In the first {TE1}, God controls every detail of every
>"chance" event, so re-playing the tape of life would turn out EXACTLY the
>same, in every detail. In the second {TE2}, God intervenes at strategic
>points (in ways which are "guiding" but not obviously "miraculous") so
>that if the tape were replayed, humans would rise again. In the third
>{TE3}, God was pleased to let his creation "do its thing" without
>intervening, until such time as _intelligent_ creatures started to arise,
>after which he began to appropriately "intervene" to ensure they would be
>ready for his personal revelation.
>
>-----
Wow, it seems we're thinking in different directions ;-). TE1 I consider
to be clearly progressive creation. I also consider TE2 to be PC, but
perhaps not so obviously. TE3 is clearly theistic evolution, however I
don't think its exactly clear to what extent nature can "do its thing".
>
>Comment 2a: It seems to me that there is a continuum of positions
>between TE2 and your version of PC.
>
>I made this point in an earlier post. I was REALLY hoping you'd respond
>to it then. Here's your second chance. :-)
>
> If God proscriptively determines the outcome of "chance" events, then
> God could guide evolution along a specific pathway: for example, the
> appearance of a new species within an isolated subpopulation of an old
> species. No _single_ "chance event" (a mutation, or an environmental
> event, or whatever) would have been identifiable as a supernatural
> event. If the _cumulative_ effect of these events demonstrate obvious
> "guidance" (e.g. in just a few generations a novel, complex
> morphological feature developed requiring many mutational steps but
> without any selective advantage for each step along the way), this
> would fit the "Progressive Creation" model.
OK, we agree more than I thought at first ;-). If the above could be
demonstrated then one has strong evidence for creation, IMHO.
> On the other hand, if the
> cumulative effect of all of these "chance events" does NOT demonstrate
> obvious "guidance" (e.g. one mutation in a developmental program gene
> caused a significant (though not very deleterious) morphological change
> which was then acted upon by "ordinary" microevolutionary processes to
> stabilize a new and significantly altered form) -- even though God
> proscriptive determined each little event along the way -- this would
> fit the "Theistic Evolution" model.
Agreed. But there seems to be another possibility here, in fact I think
this was (b) that I forgot above :). Suppose that Brian Goodwin is correct,
i.e. (1) there is no essentially infinite continuum of morhological
"shapes" (body plans etc) for mutations+natural selection to pick and
choose from (2) instead there are a much fewer number of "generic forms"
determined by nonlinear physical and chemical laws. These forms come
"for free", they don't have to be selected for, they are "just there".
Now we still have naturalistic evolution but we don't have to resort to
the "accident of history" explanation which fails to explain. Also, the
tape plays again (for the most part), i.e. the generic forms that are
"just there" will be found again and again.
I am interested in trying to develop these ideas further. I find it appealing
in the sense that it provides a natural way to combine intelligent design
with theistic evolution. The intelligent design comes about through
"Anthropic Principle" reasoning. Why do the laws of self-organization
just happen to contain the recipes for biological life? This also retains
the essential tension between light and darkness that I mentioned a couple
of weeks ago:
"there is enough light for those who desire only to see,
and enough darkness for those with a contrary disposition" --Pascal
In other words, it is evidence of purpose, but the evidence is not
irresistable.
[...]
==
Brian Harper:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=
"I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,
044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the
Universe and the same number of electrons." Arthur Stanley Eddington
:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=