On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:03:35 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>On the issue of divine guidance and intervention in evolution,
Stephen
>Jones wrote:
>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.
LH>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:
LH>You gave two versions of Progressive Creation:
SJ>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.
LH>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.
I have no problem with the above, but it is not really a "re-write" of
PC2. It is vague. It does not specify *how* God may have "subtly
guided" natural processes. It is this *how* dimension that separates
PC from TE.
[...]
>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.
LH>I agree with that.
Good. Our positions are falsifiable! :-)
>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? :-)
LH>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!
This may be a good test. But as I understand it, Darwinists maintain
that what is lethal in one environment may be neutral or even
advantageous
in another. For example, sickle-cell anaemia. They would probably just
say the environment changed in the past, altering the fitness terrain,
so
that an in-between series of substitutions was possible.
Alternatively,
they may believe that macro-mutations may have occurred for reasons
we are not aware of, to jump the 10 substitutions in a single bound
(shades of Superman! :-)).
LH>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.
No doubt. But I wonder if Darwinists would ever not be able to invent
"just-so" stories to account for anything?
LH>As you say, to falsify PC or TE, we have to empirically study the
>scientific likelihood of these sorts of things.
Agreed. But in the case of PC, what the Bible says is of primary
importance. It seems to me that TE believes that "the scientific
likelihood" is of primary importance and what the Bible say is only
of secondary importance. Examples are your crunching together
Creation and Providence and Glenn's wrenching of the Flood out
of its recent Mesopotamian context. Where the scientific evidence is
unclear or non-existent, thn PCs would prefer to "possess our souls
in patience and be assured that the Scriptures are as trustworthy
witnesses to truth" (Warfield).
>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.
LH>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. ;-)
Just because you are being consistent with your first principles, does
not mean that I am "being inconsistent" with mine. IMHO TE's do not
*really* listen to the Bible, with its Hebrew theistic world-view, but
try to make it fit into a procrustean bed built on Greek evolutionary
principles. For TE's, whether they realise it or not, science is
primary
and Scripture is secondary. 2Pet 3:16 has a warning about that sort of
thing! :-)
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------