On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Stephen Jones wrote:
> Denis
>
> On Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:22:34 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
>
> DL>Greetings from the cold end of the planet!
>
> Good to hear from you again, Denis! I thought you had dropped out of
> the Reflector? Sorry for this late reply. I'm too busy swimming in my
> pool and enjoying the summer sun! :-)
Ohhhh...that hurts!!! We are skating on them!
> Trust a dentist to be interested in posts about teeth! What do you do,
> scan for the keywords "teeth", "gums", "fangs"? :-)
I am that transparent? :-)
Regarding birds with reptilian teeth you write:
>As a PC I don't even
> have a problem with God developing a bird from a reptilian archetype.
And again later:
>Progressive Creationism would
> also hold that God could have created birds from a reptilian
> archetype.
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).
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?
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.
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. 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).
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 . . ."
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.
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?"
> 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.
This is probably the most frustrating part for me, and other evolutionary
creationists, to explain to PCs and YECs. 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.
> 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:
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.
> 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.
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.
But coming back to the rapidity
of organic change, it certainly gives one the impression that there is
Someone behind the process. 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]). However, one does not need to posit
God's direct hand in these rapid changes. 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. 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.
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, 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. 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?
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. . .
> DL>As always Stephen, Praising the Blood of the Lamb,
>
> Amen, brother! :-)
And Amen, again!
Blessings,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------