On Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:07:14 -0400 you wrote:
SJ>On the Progessive Creationist model, as set out in its most general
>form 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),
>
>I would expect there to be similarities between living things
>(because of a common Designer), but also deep differences which cannot
>be bridged, except by the Intelligent Designer's intervention (be it
>ever so subtle).
TG>But why certain similarities and not others? Why do mitochondria
>and chloroplasts look like prokaryotes?
I said there are "similarities" as well as "differences". Even
Darwinists reluctantly accept that not all "similarities" are evidence
of common ancestry. Some similarities are due to a common function
and others due to a common way of life. Besides, not all biologists
accept Margulis' theory, so I presume that the differences are
important? My daughter's 800-page university Biology textbook devotes
less than a page to Margulis' theory, and seems unusually tentative
(it is otherwise a very pro- evolutionary book):
"It's BELIEVED that the first eukaryotic cells did not possess energy-
related organelles; instead they were acquired through a process of
endosymbiosis. The endosymbiotic theory states that chloroplasts and
mitochondria were originally prokaryotes that came to reside inside a
eukaryotic cell, establishing a symbiotic relationship known as
mutualism. In other words, today's mitochondria MIGHT be derived from
an aerobic (oxygen-using) bacterium that was taken up by an eukaryotic
cell in exchange for a ready supply of nutrients. Chloroplasts MIGHT
be derived from a photosynthetic bacterium that permitted its host to
carry on photosynthesis" (Mader S., "Biology", Wm. C. Brown:
Indiana, Third Edition, 1990, p70. emphasis mine).
The "similarities" may be related by design, or they may be related by
descent, or even by both. I have no problem with an Intelligent
Designer creating a eukaryote from a prokaryote, or a mitochondria
from aerobic bacteria. But OTOH the apparent homology may just be an
analogy, and there be no common ancestry at all.
It is noteworthy that E.O. Wilson (of Sociobiology fame) mentions the
endosymbiosis theory, but then immediately after candidly admits it is
part of a modern "creation-myth":
"SCENE 16. Eucaryotic organisms evolve. It is possible that the
chloroplasts found in eucaryotic plants are the vestigial remains of
symbiotic bluegreen photosynthetic algae, and that the mitochondria
found in all eucaryotes are the descendants of symbiotic
nonphotosynthetic bacteria. The combination of a high oxygen
concentration in the atmosphere, the emergence of a really efficient
system of respiration, the evolution of eucaryotes, and the appearance
of multicellular life forms, all lead to an explosion of life all over
the planet, and to the upsurge in number and variety of fossil remains
that marks the beginning of the Cambrian era. At this stage the
evolution of life as a mechanism is complete, and the further
evolutionary development of plants and animals is a familiar story.
...How much of this can be believed? EVERY GENERATION NEEDS ITS OWN
CREATION MYTHS, AND THESE ARE OURS. They are probably more accurate
than any that have come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to
revision as we find out more about the nature and the history of life.
The best that can be said for any scientific theory is that it
explains all the data at hand and has no obvious internal
contradictions." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on Earth", Sinauer
Associates: Sunderland, Mass., 1973, p622, 624)
TG>You always give the same answer to every question.
I trust this is a rhetorical exaggeration? I say a lot more than
that! :-) You actually asked "On the Progressive Creationist
model...why would we expect such a relationship to exist?" I
first stated what my understanding of the PC model was.
TG>Your PC model does not seem to be a very fruitful theory:
It is a *model* not a "theory" - it is a broad metaphysical framework
for relating the facts of science to a Biblical theistic worldview.
Everyone has a broad metaphysical framework, only some don't realise
they have one. I just state mine up front for clarity, and because PC
is often misunderstood by both YECs and TEs.
There is nothing necessarily "unfruitful" about my PC model. PC does
not say "God did it" to discourage theory building. In fact PC would
encourage scientists to try to find out *how* the Intelligent Designer
created.
TG>it does not differentiate among questions or explanations. The
>endosymbiosis theory accounts very nicely why certain similarities are
>found and not others.
There is no antithesis between my PC model and "the endosymbiosis
theory". Read what Ramm said again, "...there may be much horizontal
radiation. The amount is to be determined by the geological record
AND BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTATION." (emphasis mine)
TG>This raises an interest question that I pursued with one of our
>philosophers here at Calvin. Do similarities and the nested patterns found
>in biological world support common design and common ancestry equivalently?
>I've always been willing to grant that they support both postions
>equivalently and that my preference for common ancestry is due to other
>knowledge of genetic and other biological processes. To my surprise, he
>said no and gave all sorts of reasons why the common ancestry hypothesis
>was to be preferred from a philosophy of science point of view.
Why do you and your "philosophers" assume a necessary antithesis
between "common design and common ancestry"? I repeat that, as I
understand PC, an Intelligent Designer could create new designs from
His previous designs (expressed in flesh and blood).
TG>Unfortunately, I wasn't taking notes, so I can't remember all of
>the
>details. But part of his argument had to do with what sorts of questions
>one could ask of each model and what sorts of expectations each theory
>would lead to. Part of the argument had to do with the fact that the
>common design argument made no necessary predictions about the patterns we
>see, but that common ancestry did: for example, the amount of diversity in
>a given family (say the cat family) and their biographical distribution and
>the degree of diversity over time. Part of the argument related to the
>fruitfulness of a theory in provoking additional questions or additional
>research.
See above. IMHO design and descent is an unncessary antithesis. The
real debate is about *mechanism* and *purpose*. Even Phil Johnson
admits a Creator could have used an "evolutionary process" involving
common ancestry:
"The concept of creation in itself does not imply opposition to
evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by which one kind
of living creature changes into something different. A Creator might
well have employed such a gradual process as a means of creation.
"Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it explicitly or tacitly
defined as fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution that is not
directed by any purposeful intelligence." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., Second Edition,
1993, p3-4)
TG>I'm still inclined to say that people's resistance to evolutionary
>theory stems primarily from a belief that Christian theology
>requires/favors a special creationist/interventionist mode of
>creation and that they are worried about the apologetic impact of an
>evolutionary account (--like Phil Johnson's view that if God's
>activity is not evident then he is a superfluous add-on to our
>thinking).
There is a subtle switch-over here. Common ancestry does not
necessarily imply "evolutionary theory". It could equally be
progressive creation theory.
It is IMHO incontestable that "Christian theology requires/favors a
special creationist/interventionist mode of creation". The Bible
depicts an interventionist God from Genesis to Revelation.
I agree with Phil Johnson, that modern Darwinist "evolutionary theory"
is a "blind watchmaker" theory, where all living things are the result
of purposeless materialistic natural processes. A God always
directing this process behind the scenes, and never intervening, would
be superfluous:
"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between
what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'.
Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in
instantaneous creation. The evidence for some sort of evolution has
become too overwhelming. But many theologians who call themselves
evolutionists...smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some
sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken,
either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of
course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more
comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary
change. We cannot disprove beliefs like these, especially if it is
assumed that God took care that his interventions always closely
mimicked what would be expected from evolution by natural selection.
All that we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are
superfluous and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main
thing we want to explain, namely organized complexity." (Dawkins R.,
"The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p316)
If this "blind watchmaker" Darwinist theory is proven to be true, then
it will will be the end of "Christian theology", at least as I
understand it. It may be that some "evolutionary creationist"
Christian intellectuals may be able to hang on for a while, believing
in an "invisible gardener" deity, but if the "blind watchmaker" theory
finally is accepted by the common man in the pew, then there won't be
many left in churches or in Christian colleges. I probably won't be.
After all, if a Materialist-Naturalist explanation of life is
consistently more "fruitful" than any theistic theory, then it is
likely that theism is a degenerate research program (ie. it is
false):
"The problem, very briefly stated, is this: if employing MN is the
only way to reach true conclusions about the history of the universe,
and if the attempt to provide a naturalistic history of the universe
has continually gone from success to success, and if even theists
concede that trying to do science on theistic premises always leads
nowhere or into error (the embarrassing "God of the gaps"), then the
likely explanation for this state of affairs is that naturalism is
true and theism is false." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p211)
Obviously I don't believe MN is more "fruitful" than theism, but I do
believe that theists have to date made a poor showing, for a number
of understandable reasons. I hope that the new wave of Theistic
Realists can help redress this situation.
TG>I think that Stephen's own posts over the past year is evidence of
>the former. I happen to disagree and am much
>more open to the evolutionary account than he is as a result.
I totally agree. I am an unrepentant convinced philosophical theist
and anti-Darwinist! :-) I firmly believe that the Darwinist theory of
macro-evolution is a "powerful delusion" and a manifestation of "the
lie" that Paul warned the Church about (2Th 2:11; Rom 1:25).
I hasten to add that this does *not* mean that evolutionists are all
evil, or that creationists are all good. I am talking about the
*system* not the individual people caught up in it.
Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by "the evolutionary
account". Do you mean "blind watchmaker" evolution? That's what
Margulis (Sagan's wife) presumably believes in her endosymbiosis
theory. Or do you mean a God-guided "theistic" evolution? How
can it meaningfully be said that God guides a 100% materialistic,
naturalistic, purposeless natural process? If God guides in any real
way that is over and above the "blind watchmaker" process, then
where is your TE differ from my PC? Why is your TE so "fruitful" and
my PC so unfruitful? Is it only because of the naturalistic component
of your TE, ie. the "E" rather than the "T"? If so, just what does
your "theistic" add to the "evolution"? :-)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------