On Sat, 16 Dec 1995 19:26:15 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
SJ>IMHO, this leaves open the possibility that God formed man by a
>series of miraculous vertical interventions at strategic points,
>while allowing much horizontal natural processes, as per Ramm's PC
>model:
SJ>"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).
DL>PC Bernard Ramm's classic book was written in 1955. 40 years have
>since past, but are there any PCs during this time who have committed
>themselves to stating where these "miraculous vertical interventions"
>are in historic time, and what biological structures were indeed
>modified or added?
See my previous post. Ramm was a *theologian* so he was not overly
worried about "where these `miraculous vertical interventions' " were
"in historic time" nor "what biological structures were...modified or
added? His concern was to build a high level model where Biblical and
scientific facts could be related. He was happy for "the amount" to
be "determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation."
More recently Pat Pun has written a more detailed book on the
scientific aspects of PC: Pun P.P.T., "Evolution: Nature and
Scripture in Conflict?", Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982. I
understand that Pat is working on a revision.
I am more interested in getting down to low-level detail with PC. In
your absence from the Reflector I posted low-level PC arguments about
Acanthostega growing a foot millions of years before it was needed. I
proposed this was a vertical genetic increment due to divine
intervention, rather than a horizontal selective adaptation.
DL>Better, how many of these "miraculous vertical interventions"
>were there between apes and man?
Leakey identifies "four key stages" in human development:
1. "The first was the origin of the human family itself, some 7
million years ago, when an apelike species with a bipedal, or upright,
mode of locomotion evolved."
2. "The second stage was the proliferation of bipedal species, a
process that biologists call adaptive radiation. Between 7 million
and 2 million years ago, many different species of bipedal ape
evolved, each adapted to slightly different ecological circumstances.
Among this proliferation of human species was one that, between 3
million and 2 million years ago, developed a significantly larger
brain."
3. "The expansion in brain size marks the third stage, and signals the
origin of the genus Homo, the branch of the human bush that led
through Homo erectus and ultimately to Homo sapiens."
4. "The fourth stage was the origin of modern humans-the evolution of
people like ourselves, fully equipped with language, consciousness,
artistic imagination, and technological innovation unseen elsewhere in
nature."
(Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994, p.xv)
Not all PC would accept that there were any "`miraculous vertical
interventions' between apes and man", preferring to see man as a
direct de novo creation. Indeed some (most?) PC's would not accept
any genetic continuity between the "kinds" of Gn 1. However, IMHO this
is not essential to PC theory. I am a PC and I can accept that God
progressively created new designs by modifying existing genetic
material, including "between apes and man".
DL>Seeing we are 98% genetically identical with chimps, PCs should
>have a rather easy task in that they can focus on that 2% difference
>zone.
This is a fallacy, that even I, an "unlearned and ignorant" (Acts
4:13) non-scientist can see! :-) We are not simply "98% genetically
identical with chimps". As I understand it electrophoretic protein
sequencing only shows the *biochemical* distance between living
things. It tells us little or nothing about the *organisation* of
those biochemicals in their genomes. Gould points out that:
"The genetic differences between humans and chimps are minor, but they
include at least ten large [chromosomal] inversions and
translocations." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", Penguin: London,
1977, p55)
In any event it is simplistic to think that to "focus on that 2%
difference zone" in the human genome should represent "a rather easy
task" for PC. The "2% difference zone" in the human genome is not
packaged away in a little area marked "human genes only". It
encompasses the *whole human genome". This is an enormously complex
area and much of the resources of modern molecular biology is being
devoted to in "The Human Genome Project". I am confident that when
(if) the human genome is finally mapped, that it will reveal enormous
difficulties for naturalistic evolution in accounting for how it arose
without positing divine intervention.
DL>But have any PCs really contributed (better really supported
>their theory with the actual practice) to the scientific/theological
>knowledge base in identifying these "miraculous vertical
>interventions"?
Denis I am surprised that you, a Christian demand that PC's "identify
these `miraculous vertical interventions'". I hate to say it but your
"show me your miraculous vertical interventions" sounds not much
different from the scoffer's "Where is your God?" (Ps 42:3) :-).
It may be that PC's will never be able to precisely identify exactly
where God intervened, but that does not mean that God did not
intervene. We Christians can't "identify" how other "miraculous
vertical interventions" such as the incarnation of Christ occurred,
but we believe it happened.
Besides, if naturalistic evolutionists, with all the resources of
modern science at their disposal cannot identify precisely how, where
and when their alleged macro-evolutionary events ocurred:
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability
of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical
processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals
involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by
antievolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they
would magnanimously accept as satisfactory." (Dobzhansky T., "On
Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology", Part 1, "Biology".
American Scientist, vol. 45(5), December 1957, p388)
then it seems a bit unfair for you to demand that a small group of
theologically oriented, privately funded, PC's do the equivalent for
their model.
It is unfashionable even among Christians in this naturalistic age to
believe that the Bible actually has something decisive to say about
the real world in the area of *origins*. But even agnostic scientists
like Jastrow are aware of the limitations of normal science when faced
with unique origin events:
"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."
(Jastrow R., "God and the Astronomers", 1978, W.W. Norton, NY,
pp115-116, in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis",
InterVarsity Press, Illinois, 1994, pp292-293).
I would argue that "The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the
moment of creation" applies not just to the origin of the universe,
but to *all* creation events. If God indeed took a chimp-like ancestor
and gentically engineered "ten large [chromosomal] inversions and
translocations" then science will never be able to penetrate that
mystery.
Indeed, I would argue that most TE's are really PC's because they all
seem to have to allow some "miraculous vertical interventions" by God
in the course of biological history. Even Glenn AFAIK believes that
God intervened by taking a dead hominid mutant and infused it with
life. If so, in my book this makes Glenn a PC! IMHO the only really
consistent TE would be one who believed that there were *no*
"miraculous vertical interventions" *at all* in biological history.
Indeed, if I ever become a TE, that is the position I will adopt. Any
other TE position is IMHO a logically inconsistent half-way house.
Once you grant even *one* "miraculous vertical intervention" you
cannot, in principle, rule out others. Indeed, I would be interested
in what "miraculous vertical interventions" (if any) you believe
occurred in biological history, especially in relation to the origin
of life and of man.
Happy Christmas (one of God's "miraculous vertical interventions")
:-)!
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------