On Sat, 24 Feb 1996 21:18:23 -0800 you wrote:
TI>You brought up some interesting points. [let me snip a bit...]
SJ>It is indeed possible that God has created the living world in such
>a way that man cannot detect it, but this would mean that it is
>indistinguishable from naturalistic evolution. This seems at odds
>with the general expectation that God's works in nature should resist
>a naturalistic interpretations of origin (see ReMine W.J., "The Biotic
>Message", 1993, p20), in order that man is "without excuse" (Rom
>1:20).
TI>Interesting point. I suppose if we postulated that God intended
>his works to be obvious then that might be a sound conclusion.
As a former atheist who was reluctantly converted to theism two years
before he became a Christian (having had no Christian upbringing at
all), I believe with Paul that "God" indeed "intended his works to be
obvious" and moreover that they *are* obvious. The overwhelming
majority of humanity believes in a Creator God (or gods), it is only a
small minority of atheist/agnostic intellectuals who try to deny what
they know (or once knew) in their hearts to be true! :-)
TI>I call
>this the "Louisville Slugger" approach to faith (named after a brand
>of baseball bat that is sometimes favored by the youths of New Jersey
>who want to get a point across with their "uncooperative audiences").
If God wanted to slug you, I think He would do it far better than a
youth with a baseball bat! :-) But God does not use overwhelming
force. He allows men freedom to deny Him.
TI>However, if God did not intend to make faith compulsory or at least
>allows uncertainty, then I think the question is up for grabs.
See above. Faith is not "compulsory". Indeed "compulsory faith" is
a contradiction in terms. Faith implies freedom to disbelieve.
TI>Depending on the nature of God, or at least, one's auxillary
>assumptions about God's nature, different patterns or results could
>be expected. I can see that this makes the development of creation
>theories extremely difficult, and I highly respect those who do not
>attempt shortcuts in the process.
Thanks, but I personally believe that evolution is not a live option
for a consistently Biblical theist.
TI>On a completely different tangent about whether God's works should
>resist naturalistic interpretations, I wonder if Walter ReMine's
>theory is falsified, or at least in trouble because of the patterns
>of extinction that have been observed. Let me explain further --
>And please, feel free to comment on this reasoning; I don't know
>if I have all the kinks worked out.
>
>Basically, the Biotic Message suggests that; 1) Life was made to
>look unlike anything except made by a single designer (or common plan).
>and 2) That organisms are "reasonably" well designed for survival.
>What about extinction? Walter ReMine postulates that a creator might
>use a nested hierarchical pattern to send the message. However, unlike
>the hierarchy proposed by evolution, where the nodes and connecting
>lines should represent real organisms and physical lines of descent,
>creation holds that the branches are simply patterns.
*Some* "creation" theories emphasise design rather than descent, and
may be "simply patterns". I am a Progressive Creationist but do not
claim that design and descent are necessarily antithetical. An
Intelligent Designer could use existing genetic code in generating new
designs.
TI>Thus in creation
>theory individual organism's or group's creation does not necessarily
>depend on another's (eg. with creation, organisms are not related by
>birth or common descent). In evolution -- common descent with
>modification -- if a species dies out without having "spawned" another
>species, it is gone forever. Extinction applies to larger groups as well.
>However, if species or higher order groups are generated by individual
>creation events, then extinction of one species or a group of similar
>species cannot prohibit the creator from later introducing species
>that belong to the same form as the extinct species (or group). These
>actions would restore the pattern.
Nothing could "prohibit" a omnipotent "creator" from doing anything,
but it could be argued that creating new species de novo that after
the extinction of a presumed common ancestor, in order to "restore the
pattern", would be a form of deception.
Note that I do not believe that it is necessary to hold to a crass
conception that "species or higher order groups are generated by
individual creation events". The 19th century doctrine of separate
creations is not even held by Creation-Scientists. The application of
Intelligent Design could be very subtle and utilise much natural
process, yet still be 100% effective.
TI>How does this stack up with observations? The fossil record shows
>many significant extinction events with no replacements occuring in many
>(most?) of these cases. There is no dispute that numerous major groups
>have vanished over time. These disappearances can happen rapidly or
>gradually. Common descent theories would suggest that these patterns
>ended because the lines of descent were broken by extinction. I think
>that these observations run counter to the axioms of the Message
>hypothesis. Now, it's not a question of whether such extinctions are
>possible with just any creator; they are. Instead, it is a question
>of whether a creator bounded by the axioms of the message hypothesis
>would have permitted group exinctions, considering; 1) that such
>a pattern would definitely resemble or "look like" evolution; and
>2) that such patterns could have been restored by subsequent creation
>or "release" events. This hypothesis must be tested and judged against
>the observed patterns, independently of whether evolution is certain.
I don't follow you here. I cannot think why Biotic Message theory
would have a problem with "extinction". How on earth does "group
exinctions...`look like' evolution? At this point I suggest you
define what you mean by "evolution".
TI>Now, I certainly do not think that this line of reasoning rules out
>TE, PC or even SC in general. All of those positions are basically
>unaffected by extinction events and in some interpretations, mass
>extinctions are even seen as support. However, I suspect that this
>pattern of extinction does rule out the particular SC theory described
>in _The Biotic Message_. Does this conclusion seem reasonable?
Not really. I think you need to explain better why mass extinctions
of "major groups" by (say) an asteroid collision, "looks like
evolution".
I know "evolution" is a plastic theory, but that sounds positively
liquid! :-)
Regards.
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------