On Sat, 2 Dec 1995 15:49:00 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
[...]
DL>Regarding birds with reptilian teeth you write:
>
SJ>As a PC I don't even have a problem with God developing a bird
>from a reptilian archetype.
>And again later:
>
SJ>Progressive Creationism would also hold that God could have
>created birds from a reptilian archetype.
DL>The problem I find with this method (and believe me when I was a PC
>I used it all the time) is that it dismisses the obvious. For
>example, if there is a blood trail of say two victims and even the
>suspected murderer from the scene of the crime to the suspect's home
>what is the obvious conclusion? One could say that maybe a bad cop
>(or even God) splashed in the blood along the trail. But you see,
>that is not the obvious/natural conclusion unless of course you are
>committed to the notion that most cops are bad cops (or that God goes
>about splashing victim's and innocent individual's blood along the
>trail, giving the FALSE IMPRESSION that the suspect is a murderer).
Sorry, I don't understand the analogy. To me Progressive Creation
seems "the obvious conclusion" and macro-evolution frankly
unbelievable! :-)
DL>So back to the old bird with teeth. Why would God use a reptilian
>dentition (ie, archetype) or if I understand you correctly, keep the
>reptilian dentition in His newly created beings called birds, and
>then about 70 myrs later in the Cretaceous decide to get rid of the
>dentition and by a miracle add a beak? Just to confuse comparative
>odontologists like me some 144 myrs later to think that birds evolved
>from reptiles? Maybe just to test my faith?
Well that's the point. It was not "70 myrs" but the new find is that
a bird has been found with no teeth and a beak only 10 million
years after Archaeopteryx. In fact, it may be even less time.
I do not claim anything about "dentition". To me the essential
elements are: 1) God's planned design; and 2) the genetic code
program. The "dentition" is an effect caused by an underlying change
in the code, according to God's archetypal design plan. I am quite
happy with Gould's "bush" model of evolution. But I believe the
bottom line is it is God who grafts new code material onto that bush's
existing genetic program. In fact the Bible confirms that pattern of
God's working in the grafting of the Gentiles onto Israel's stock (Rom
11:17ff)
I think you may misunderstand my use of Progressive Creation? It is
not YEC-style de-novo creations of whole creatures over a longer
time-frame. My view of PC is summed up by Ramm:
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical
radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to
several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the
unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal
radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the
theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps
because vertical progress takes place only by creation." (Ramm B.
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster: London,
1955, p191)
The only qualification I would make is Ramm's use of "Fiat Creation".
I do not necessarily mean that God created whole organism de novo. An
example I have used is Acanthostega. It now turns out that
Acanthostega (or similar) began to grow a foot from a fin millions of
years before it was needed for walking on land. I would believe that
the ultimate cause of this new design was a direct intervention by
God. It would be OK if this was a precisely directed cosmic ray
causing a crucial point mutation, a quantum fluctuation, a special
environment prepared, etc. The bottom line for me is that God
intervened in biological history at strategic points just as He
intervenes at strategic points in human history.
This view is very close to Theistic Evolution, in fact some would say
it is. But it is not evolution because it's essential element is
God's direct supernaturalistic intervention in the natural world. I
do not base this on a verse here and there but on the sort of
interventionist God the whole Bible reveals from cover to cover.
DL>This situation quite reminds me of when fossils were first
>recognized. One of the first interpretations was that they were
>mineral deposits, then others thought they were placed there by God
>to test our faith. But the obvious answer was they were evidence
>that biological life at a time long ago was very different. However,
>it was a theological (not Biblical) notion (ie, that extinction
>cannot be true) that was undergirding the resistance to accepting the
>obvious interpretation of fossils.
Actually it was not just the theologians who disbelieved fossils. The
atheistic rationalist Voltaire thought the fossils were fish thrown
away by the Crusaders! :-)
DL>So if one is committed that evolution is untrue (as I once was),
>then every obvious homology gets written off as God reusing an
>archetype, or genetic program.
Actually I think there is very good evidence that "homology" at its
most basic is evidence of the outworking of an external plan.
Homologous organs are coded for by non-homologous genes:
"First, the general absence of homologous (similar)342 genes for
homologous structures (i.e., the general presence of
nonhomologous genes) indicates unrelatedness rather than
relatedness of different natural groups of organisms. That was
noted by Sir Gavin de Beer former director of the British Museum
of Natural History an(d embryology professor at University College
of London, in his book entitled Homology, An Unsolved Problem:
`Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by
identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply
similarity of genotypes...It is now clear that the pride with which it
was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a
common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such
inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to
find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been
given up as hopeless...what mechanism can it be that results in the
production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of
their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question
in 1938, and it has not been answered.' " (Bird W. R., "The Origin
of Species Revisited", Vol. I, Regency: Nashville, 1991, p95).
This is evidence for an external plan that transcends the organisms
themselves.
DM>But Stephen, is there not going to be a point when you keep seeing
>these homologies, whether anatomical or molecular, and you begin to
>be suspicious that maybe there is indeed a real genetic connection
>between two groups? In other words, if the trail between the murder
scene and the suspect's home starts producing other evidence besides
just blood (eg, hair, saliva, fibers, etc,) is it judicious to keep on
believing that a dirty cop (or God) also planted this evidence? That
in my mind is exactly what I used to do when I was a PC, and it is
what Paul Nelson did last winter when we were debating some of the
lastest molecular data (ie, HOX and HOMc).
Again, you misunderstand my version of PC. I believe there may be a
"real genetic connection between two groups". The divine archetype is
really played out in the tape of life.
And the HOX genes are strong support for my PC model. I actually
posted something about them a few months ago:
"The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy conceals
enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that the Hox
genes and the non-Hox homeobox genes are not independent agents but
members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and myriad others
will change as well-and not necessarily for the better. Thus dreams
of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what scientists
call a "hopeful monster"-such as a fish with feet-are likely to remain
elusive. Scientists, as Duboule observes, are still far from
reproducing in a laboratory the biochemical are that nature has taken
millions of years to accomplish." (J. Madeleine Nash, Chicago,
"Where Do Toes Come From?", TIME, August 7,1995, p69)
DL>If I may, IMHO, let me be a prophet in stating the following: the
>molecular data is only going to get better, drastically better. And
>PCs are either going to "apostasize" like me, or are going to be
>hearing themselves repeat, "Well, God used the archetype of . . ."
I have no problem with "the molecular data" getting "better". I can
see God as the Master Programmer who designed the the enormously
complex HOX genes networks for His sole use, and manipulates them
to accompolish His purposes. IMHO HOX genes are a big problem for
Neo-Darwinism's "blind watchmaker" model.
DL>In my own intellectual evolution (:-), and yes it is primarily
>tooth evidence (yet the dental record is one of the best because
>teeth are the hardest vertebrate tissues), the "blood" trail is very
>full, and even gradualistic. And that is what happened to
>me--looking at teeth day in and day out and seeing painfully obvious
>homologies like the old bird with a reptile's dentition.
As I have said, I have no problem with God making a bird out of a
reptilian archetype. If that involved patching the HOX genes of an
existing coelurosaurian dinosaurs such as Compsognathus, that is
OK by me.
DL>The question becomes, Stephen, "How many homologies is it going to
>take before a PC is going to cease from bringing in the "trump
>card"--Ah, God used an archetypal program in the creation of this new
>group?"
Sorry, but I don't see any antithesis between "homologies" and
"archetypal programs". In fact the reverse. I see homologies as
evidence of "archetypal programs", and an "unsolved problem" for
Darwinism.
SJ>Again, I have no problem with its "initiation" by an Intelligent
>Designer". But I would like more details how this "initiation" would
>be made by the Blind Watchmaker.
DL>This is probably the most frustrating part for me, and other
>evolutionary creationists, to explain to PCs and YECs.
May I state that I regard "evolutionary creationist" as an oxymoron -
like "military intelligence"! :-) The idea of evolution (an unfolding
from within) is competely antithetical to the the idea of creation:
"The fundamental contrast between the Hebrew-Christian doctrine of
creation and the Greek-modern doctrine of evolution is therefore
crystal-clear. The Genesis creation account depicts a personal
supernatural agent calling into existence graded levels of life by
transcendent power. The Greek-modern theory depicts a simple primitive
reality temporally differentiated by immanent activity into
increasingly complex entities that retain this capacity for future
development." (Henry C.F.H., "Science and Religion", in Henry C.F.H.,
ed., "Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey", Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1968, p252)
DL> We don't believe in a Blind Watchmaker. He is a very open-eyed
>Creator. Being an evolutionist as I am does not necessarily mean one
>believes the process is dysteleological--I AM AN UTTERLY COMMITTED
>TELEOLOGIST. And, I am thoroughly committed to natural
>theology--yes, "the heavens do declare the glory of God." Don't
>conflate the evolutionary creationist position with that of Dawkins.
Good! Then we are probably very close. But I believe the EC position
is only half Biblical because it correctly holds that God works
through His natural laws, but incorrectly rules out God acting
directly and supernaturally complementary to those natural laws.
SJ>IMHO the shortening of time frames supports PC better than
>Darwinist macro-evolution. Remember that according to Dawkins, the
>blind watchmaker can work only if there is sufficient time:
DL>Part of the problem with our debates is terminology. "Darwinist"
>macro-evolution is not the evolution held by Dawkins. Darwin through
>all six editions of the Origin of Species believed in a teleological
>evolution (That's a chapter in my theology PhD). For that matter,
>right up to the year he died in 1882, and yes he fipped around on the
>issue, he believed in teleology.
Firstly I don't use Darwinist in the sense of exactly what
Charles Darwin believed. I use it as Dawkins and Gould use it today -
the broad Neo-Darwinist theory of macro-evolution involving random
mutation and various selection mechanisms.
Secondly, I don't believe that Darwin really believed in teleology
in any meaningful way. This was Charles Hodge's considered opinion and
it would be supported by modern Darwinists like Gould and Dawkins.
Most consider Darwin's reference to a Creator as either a hands-off
Deistic First Cause or just a sop to the Church and/or his Unitarian
wife.
SJ>While some (eg. Jim Foley) will say that 10 million years is
>sufficient, I am confident that these time-frames will continue
>to narrow down right across the whole spectrum of all so-called
>transitional fossils, until it becomes quite clear that God is sending
>us a biotic message that it was *not* naturalistic evolution that
>created life's complex designs.
DL>Now this is one area where my thinking is still in a formulatory
>state. And part of the reason is that our knowledge of biological
>systems and mechanisms has still got quite a way to go before we can
>offer detailed and definitive evolutionary mechanisms. Now, did I
>just contradict myself? No. I accept the tentativeness of the
>evolutionary THEORY. I think it is clearly the best model we have by
>far. And in my experience it is fruitful.
What "theory" and what "model" is that exactly? I agree with Walter
that evolution is like a fog that accommodates to the data. It has
been backpedalling ever since Darwin's Origin of 1859. The theory
today is nothing like Darwin originally predicted, and if it abandons
the central role of natural selection in favout of Kauffman-style
self-organising complexity, then it won't really be an evolutionary
theory . In fact see Johnson's RITB (p227-228) where Johnson wrote to
Gould after one of his recent anti-Dawkins outburst, and suggested
that he (Gould) was "no more a Darwinist than I (Johnson) am" and
yet Gould "did not answer" Johnson's charge.
DL>But coming back to the rapidity of organic change, it certainly
>gives one the impression that there is Someone behind the process.
Agreed. But I am prepared to stick my neck out and affirm that that
Someone is not only "behind" the process, but He intervenes in it at
strategic points, giving it new content and direction.
>And if one wants to use Walter R.'s term "biotic message" that's fine
>(but really the concept has been around for a long time--ie, natural
>theology/philosophy [and of course, all the Barthians on the
>reflector gag]).
I agree with this reservation about Walter's theory vis-a-vis "natural
theology". I plan to write a review of Walter's book when I finish
it, and that is one of my concerns. I am probably something of a
"Barthian" in Ramm's "After Fundamentalism" sense. While I think there
is a message in Creation (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:20), I am not sure it is as
detailed as Walter claims.
DL>However, one does not need to posit God's direct hand in these
>rapid changes.
Why would a Christian theist describe this as a "need" as though
positing "God's direct hand" was something to be avoided?
DL>It could well be that our absolutely amazing God set the
>biological system up to have these amazing "biological big bangs",
>and in so doing made us realize that not only do we see static design
>(eg, these clever little 26 trillion synaptic connection brains we
>have), but that there is design in the PROCESS. In other words, I as
>an evolutionary creationist I have an argument of design that is
>TWICE that of my YEC and PC brothers.
Sorry, but this is one "PC brother" who believes fully "that there is
design in the process"! :-) But I also believe that God can and
did plan to intervene in the process. That is the pattern of God's
working from Genesis to Revelation.
DL>That is, not only am I amazed at the complexity of our brains, I am
>doubly amazed that it came about by such a quick process, one that in
>the end even resulted for us in the acquisition of the ontological
>reality of the imago Dei.
Evolutionists have yet to show how an unaided natural process did in
fact result in the human brain. Gould has described the slope of its
graph of brain capacity relative to body size from Australopithecus
africanus to Homo sapiens, as "the highest ever calculated for an
evolutionary sequence. and "The graph indicates that our brain has
increased much more rapidly than any prediction based on compensations
for body size would allow." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin",
Penguin: London, 1977, p184-185)
Stanley sees the arrival of Homo sapiens as "the product of a
remarkable event of quantum speciation." ("The New Evolutionary
Timetable, 1991, p139, in ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message, 1993,
p321).
You appear to be making a virtue out of necessity by being "doubly
amazed that it came about by such a quick process" But Dawkins is
absolutely right when he points out that the blind watchmaker needs
time to work. Darwinists cannot have it both ways. If once it rejoiced
with Wald that " Time is in fact the hero of the plot" it can hardly
now rejoice as that time is continually shrinking. In a recent Time
(pun unintended! :-) ) magazine article on the Cambrian explosion,
there is an interesting question:
"We now know how fast fast is," grins Bowring. "And what I like to
ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they
start feeling uncomfortable?" (Nash J.M., "When Life Exploded", Time,
December 4, 1995, p74).
Of course one does not even have to ask that question of a
Creationist!
DL>Finally, one last comment. If you will note that on the reflector
>I rarely engage in any of the conspiracy rhetoric--you know that talk
>of evil secular scientists and church destroying Christian academics
>(like me). But take note all the conspiracy theorists: this week
>Time magazine gave you a lot of ammunition with a terrific article on
>the Cambrian Explosion.
Yes. See above. I already had quoted it before I read this! :-)
DLYes, evolution sure was quick, wasn't it? And yes, you are sure
>quick to say, "Too quick, God must have been in there directly
>intervening in His creation . . . there is just no way life could
>have evolved that quickly." BUT FOLKS, REMEMBER ALL THIS RESEARCH
>(YES, YOUR AMMO) IS BEING GIVEN TO YOU BY THOSE EVIL SECULAR
>SCIENTISTS FROM THE SECULAR ACADEMY. You know, those guys that
cannot possibly be trusted with interpreting the data.
I hope you are not referring to me Denis. I have never claimed that
secular scientists are "evil". I believe that *Darwinism* is evil in
that it is inherently "rigidly materialistic and basically
atheistic" (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", Penguin: London, p33),
but I do not believe that *Darwinists* are necessarily evil.
DL>Did the Time article cite the contributions of the PCs and YECs?
>No, of course not, because they are not contributors to the main body
>of scientific knowledge. For that matter, most are amateurs,
>positionned a great distance from the actual data. What
>contributions are they actually making to the field, other than
>taking the data of others and skewing it into their THEOLOGICALLY
>(and suspiciously poor theology at that) based science? The answer
>is "none". Rather ironic situation would you not say? Amateurs
>appealing to professionals, yet amaterus standing in judgment of
>professionals. The question becomes, do the amateurs even have the
>tools to dialogue with the professionals? Ironic or incongruent? I
>will leave the conspiracy theorists to decide. Any PCs or YECs
>feeling just a wee bit guilty?
Sorry Denis, but modern materialistic-naturalistic science will not
accept "contributions of the PCs and YECs". When a respected
evolutionist origin of life researcher named Prof. Dean Kenyon
proposed Intelligent Design as a possible scientific hypothesis based
on the evidence, he was removed from teaching duties. To criticise
creationists for not making a contribution to mainstream scientific
debate is a bit like Saddam Hussein criticising the Iraqi people for
not forming an opposition party! :-)
Besides, we are not talking of normal operation science here. We are
talking about *origins*, which is heavily metaphysical. I believe
that Sadie the Scrubwoman who reads her Bible is more right in the
big-picture (even though she may not know the details), and your
"professionals" might be right in the details, but if they don't
believe in the God of the Bible then they are wrong in the
big-picture. I would remind you of what Jastrow wrote:
"A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our
Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation
is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of
creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by
all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the
Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth.... At this
moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the
curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived
by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.
He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the
highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted
by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
("God and the Astronomers", 1978, pp115-116 in Moreland J.P. ed.,
"The Creation Hypothesis, 1994, pp292-293).
DL>That is all I have to say about conspiracy theories, and I will
>probably regret it. And please, Stephen don't take this last part of
>my post as being directed at you. It is really for those who should
>have ears, to let them hear...
>Already feeling the flames of the internet licking my hard drive...
Thank you for confirming this was not directed at me, Denis! :-)
And thank you for this opportunity to clarify my view of PC.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------