SJ> There is confusion here. If TE claims that there has been "subtle
> intervention in natural mechanisms" then it cannot claim "the
> possibility...even probability...of those events is inherent in the
> natural mechanisms." Which is it?
> [...]
> If TE's don't believe these "seemingly random events were programed
> into the natural laws of the Universe from day 1", then how else did
> God "achieve exactly the end they did achieve"? The only alternative
> is external guidance or intervention.
> [...]
> It is unclear here if there has been any divine "intervention" in any
> meaningful sense. IMHO TE is an unstable position. If it grants any
> divine intervention, then it is difficult to distinguish it from PC.
> OTOH if it denies divine intervention, then it is difficult to
> distinguish it from DE.
TE allows divine intervention/guidance. What distinguishes TE from PC is
the expected efficacy of natural mechanisms.
Perhaps I can clarify things with this juxtaposition:
You gave two versions of Progressive Creation:
> PC1. God created de novo new higher taxa progressively over a long
> span of time, originating or varying archetypal designs. No existing
> genetic material was used and there is no common genetic ancestry.
>
> PC2. God created new higher taxa progressively over a long
> span of time, originating or varying archetypal designs. Existing
> genetic material may have been used and there may be some common
> genetic ancestry.
Allow me to re-write PC2 this way:
(PC2) The development of life, higher taxa, and biological novelty via
natural mechanisms is scientifically UNLIKELY. God subtly guided
natural processes to produce the final result.
Brian Harper wrote about this version of TE:
(TE1) The development of life, higher taxa, and biological novelty via
natural mechanisms is scientifically LIKELY. God did NOT need to
subtly guide natural processes to produce the final result. (Genomic
phase space is designed so that certain lifeforms are, to borrow a
term from chaos theory, "strange attractors" on evolutionary pathways.
Therefore, God both foreknew and mindfully intended the final outcome
of evolution.)
It seems to me that there is an obvious intermediate between PC2 and TE1.
(TE2) The development of life, higher taxa, and biological novelty via
natural mechanisms is scientifically LIKELY. God DID subtly guide
natural processes to produce the final result. (Evolutionary processes
could produce MANY different final outcomes. The specific pathway was,
at times, chosen by God's guidance.)
-----------------------------------------------
SJ> If the origin of life and higher taxa became likely, scientifically, then
> it would falsify PC. OTOH if the reverse is true, then it would tend to
> falsify TE.
I agree with that.
> LH>Again, have a difference of scientific intuition. You see the evidence
> >pointing towards strong mechanisms for stabilizing species. I see the
> >evidence pointing towards strong mechanisms for stabilizing species MOST
> >of the time, but with the possibility on rare occasions for fairly rapid
> >morphological changes in certain populations.
SJ> I wonder what "evidence" you would accept for direct Divine
> intervention, Loren? :-)
Here's a "simple" example: Suppose a 300-amino-acid protein in two
related species is different by 10 widely-separated amino acid
substitutions. The proteins perform similar (though not completely
identical) and vital functions in each species. The proteins are coded by
corresponding genes in each species, there are no corresponding
pseudogenes, no mimic sequences in viruses or other parasitic organisms.
Suppose that parsimony reconstruction shows that each particular
substituion, alone or in pairs or triplets, is a lethal mutation. Suppose
that substituting in the conserved sites doesn't reduce lethality.
Basically, the 10 independent substitutions are shown to be an all-or-none
event. You can believe I would accept that as evidence for direct Divine
intervention!
Now, I'm sure we can construct "softer" versions of that sort of scenario.
We could construct more complex versions to take into account the complex
interactions between genes. You get the idea.
As you say, to falsify PC or TE, we have to empirically study the
scientific likelihood of these sorts of things.
--------------
> LH> [...]
> >That is why I have argued that "completed" probably refers to the
> >conception/planning phase and the acquisition-of-materials phase of
> >creation than to the mechanisms-used-in-formation phase.
SJ> That does not do justice to Genesis 1, which is all about the original
> *creation* of all things. IMHO you are imposing your evolutionary
> philosophy on the Bible.
On the other hand, I believe I am consistently applying proper
hermeneutical principles, and consistently applying the theological
perspective we bring to OTHER scientific disciplines (astrophysics,
geology, developmental biology, medicine, etc.) to the study of biological
history. I guess that means I think you're being inconsistent. Oh well,
still friends, right. ;-)
Loren Haarsma