On Sun, 8 Oct 1995 19:30:00 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>Gordon wrote:
GS>Frankly, I don't understand the basis for your last sentence.
>Despite the fact that it begins with the word "thus", it does not
>follow as a logical imperative from the previous sentence, and I see
>no reason why it should be true. As you said, "Under PC God is free
>to create whatever He wants." I feel confident that you do not
>believe you can read the mind of God. <<
GM>You are absolutely correct that I am incapable of reading the mind
>of God. And if God wanted to start with a lot of diversity among
>the phyla and then not create any new phyla at all later, I must
>agree with you. This question is intimately involved in the question
>of God's methodology. Does God work solely by miracle (PC) or does
>he use natural processes (TE). What would we look for in each case?
PC does not necessarily claim that God works "solely by miracle". I
have always stated that there is much natural process in Gn 1, for
example.
[...]
GM>...There is a pattern in the fossil record of lots of phyla early.
>Like a random walk of numerous worms in a DNA phase space the early
>phyla were generated. I believe that the DNA phase space is a
>multidimensional map of all possible animals. If you release
>numerous worms to travel through this phase space, it is unlikely
>that any two will go in the same direction, especially if the phase
>space is made of billions of billions of dimensions. If some of the
>worms going in particular directions go extinct, it is highly
>unlikely that the survivors, which are in an entirely different part
>of the phase space, can easily retrace the steps of the extinct
>worms. The survivors are somewhat limited in their ability to
>traverse the space due to the fact that some regions of the phase
>space are lethal. Thus a novel life-form which originally radiated
>from the same DNA phase point as most other macroscopic animals would
>now be limited to producing variants on the basic plan determined by
the region of DNA phase space it is already in. Thus, the phyla once
extinct would be expected to remain extinct in TE.
Those particular phyla yes. But why aren't more phyla generated from
these billions of possibilites? As I understand it there were only
a hundred or so phyla generated?
GM>In PC, if God so chose, He could re-establish a lost phyla. He has
>not so chosen.
Under PC God would have willed that the "lost phyla" should go extinct
(Mt 10:29). Why should God then chose to recreate them?
GM>Can I prove that God didn't use PC? No. You are correct here.
>Can I point out that the expectation of a random walk in DNA phase
>space is substantiated by the fossil record? I think so.
There is no such thing as a "random walk" to God (Pr 16:33). PC would
not rule out God creating by subtle use of natural processes that seem
random to man.
>Gordon wrote:
GS>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.
GS>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.)<<
GM>I do agree with you here. Neither one will disprove the other.
>That being the case, the game becomes one of persuasion. :-)
Perhaps it becomes more one of studying the scriptures and seeing what
kind of God the Bible reveals? He seems to me to be a God who did not
always let nature take its course but intervened at strategic points
in human history (eg. call of Abraham, the Exodus, the Exile and
Restoration, the Incarnation, etc).
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------