Quoting Glenn:
>
>Then Glenn wrote:
>>> For example, phyla represent the basic body plans of various plants and
>animals. In the Cambrian Explosion, all but one of the 20-30(depending on
>the taxonomist) modern phyla are represented. But there are also fifteen
>to 20 other phyla represented in the Burgess shale. (See Stephen J. Gould,
>Wonderful Life, p. 100.) Thus the Cambrian had between 35 to 50 phyla.
> 15-20 of them went extinct in the Cambrian.
>
>After this period of time, only the Bryozoa first appear in the
>Ordovician. Since that time absolutely no new phyla have been created on
>earth. Why? Certainly it can not be claimed that God is incapable of
>creating a new phylum but is it reasonable to assume that after an initial
>creative period, God got boring and stayed with the same limited
>repertoire?
>
>It would seem to me that the data here fits better with TE than with PC
>because the subsequent forms were limited in organizational body plan
>which would be expected within modern views of evolution. (But not within
>the older views) <<
>
>I agree; this does seem to fit in well with the TE perspective. But
>unless you can read the mind of God, I see no reason why this does not fit
>into the PC perspective as well.
>
If adopt Loren's definition for TE, then I think TE and PC are equivalent
on this issue, i.e. if we are espousing a view of TE in which God is subtly
guiding the process of evolution then we reach exactly the same dilemma
as above. The traditional "blind watchmaker" "explanation" involving
historical constraints would not be a constraint to this view of TE.
Any constraint could be avoided by a suitable and subtle tweaking at the
right moment. Thus, if God is really guiding evolution then he did in
fact decide to guide it in just the way described by Glenn above. Why did
he guide it this way and not some other? Did he suddenly get bored? Take
a nap for a few million years? etc. etc. :-)
>It still seems to me that it is possible that both the PC and TE positions
>are correct - in that no amount of effort is going to demonstrate that one
>view is correct and the other is wrong. (The last phrase is important.)
Failure of one view to show the other wrong doesn't mean they are both
correct, just that the issue is undecidable. The only way they are
both correct is if they are just two names for the same thing. Even here,
this is not the only choice, they could also both be incorrect ;-).
>The reason is that neither position really predicts anything that gets
>beyond an understanding of how God did things. In most case, we can not
>read the mind of God, and we really don't know - though we love to
>speculate or infer from theological perspectives and biblical texts. When
>the mind of God is clearly stated in the Bible, I find that TE's and PC's
>accept it as well. Of course, Christians do not always interpret a
>biblical passage in the same way, but this seems beside the point under
>discussion. Perhaps it is not beside the point, and TE's and PC's approach
>the Scriptures somewhat differently. Nevertheless, this does not counter
>my point.
This is very good. I agree wholeheartedly [for the moment anyway ;-)]
==
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
:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=