On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:26:17 -0400 you wrote:
>TG>A long time ago, I asked this group...at what point common
>ancestry (evolutionary) arguments broke down. For example, are all
>the species of beetles descended from a common ancestor?...Where do
>you draw the line and on what basis do you draw the line?
SJ>I for one could grant you "common ancestry" all the way back to the
>first living cell, and indeed back to life's prebiotic "ancestor". So
>what? That is *not* the point. Darwinism claims that it knows that
>the process that transformed this prebiotic ancestor into a living
>cell and from there to a Biology Professor, was an undirected,
>purposeless, 100% naturalistic process. Some of us are not satisfied
>that they have made their point and are still waiting for experimental
>(or other) confirmation of their mechanism(s).
TG>Thank you for granting me *the point*. You see that is the point.
>If you accept that point, then you are an evolutionist.
I am flattered! :-) But this shows the degree of confusion (no
offense intended <g>) that is caused by the use of such a vague,
all-inclusive term as "evolution". You would call me an
"evolutionist" and Denis calls me a "fundamentalist"! I would call
myself neither.
The fact is that common ancestry is not the ultimate diagnostic of
evolution. Even Darwin did not necessarily believe in the common
ancestry of all living things:
"Throughout whole classes various structures are formed on the same
pattern, and at a very early age the embryos closely resemble each
other. Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with
modification embraces all the members of the same great class or
kingdom. I believe that animals are descended from at most only four
or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.
Analogy would lead me one step farther, namely, to the belief that all
animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy
may be a deceitful guide." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species", 6th
edition, 1872, Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd: London,
1967, p458)
The ultimate diagnostic of evolution is its claim that a 100%
naturalistic *mechanism(s)* transformed "life's prebiotic `ancestor' "
into a "Biology Professor":
"But consider Colin Patterson's point that a fact of evolution is
vacuous unless it comes with a supporting theory. Absent an
explanation of how fundamental transformations can occur, the bare
statement that "humans evolved from fish" is not impressive. What
makes the fish story impressive, and credible, is that scientists
think they know how a fish can be changed into a human without
miraculous intervention...." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p12).
I can believe that "humans" and "fish" had a common genetic ancestor,
in that God progressively created and formed all living things from
pre-existing chemical and genetic material, over a period of millions
of years, and not be an evolutionist. Johnson implies that he
could too:
"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. Similarly, "creation"
contradicts evolution only when it means sudden creation, rather than
creation by progressive development. " (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., Second Edition,
1993, p3-4)
However, I would not call this "evolution" because "evolution"
basically means to "unroll", ie. from within:
"...the Latin evolvere means "to unroll"..." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since
Darwin", Penguin: London, 1977, p35)
Whereas I believe that the major changes in the development of life
came from God intervening from "outside". Therefore, the more
accurate description of what I believe is "Progressive Creationist"
TG>The claim that evolution is undirected, purposeless, 100%
>naturalistic is a religious claim and not a scientific claim.
No. The only "claim" that *can* be "scientific" (ie. in the
materialist-naturalist definition of "scientific") about "evolution"
is that it is "undirected, purposeless," and "100% naturalistic".
This may be indeed be "a religious claim" in the sense that
materialistic-naturalism is a type of secular religious philosophy,
but it is the current definition of "scientific":
"The National Academy of Sciences told the Supreme Court that the most
basic characteristic of science is "reliance upon naturalistic
explanations," as opposed to "supernatural means inaccessible to human
understanding." In the latter, unacceptable category contemporary
scientists place not only God, but also any non-materiaI vital force
that supposedly drives evolution in the direction of greater
complexity, consciousness, or whatever. If science is to have any
explanation for biological complexity at all it has to make do with
what is left when the unacceptable has been excluded." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second
Edition, 1993, p28)
TG>No Christian can accept that view. You and Phil Johnson insist on
>confuse the religious views of atheistic evolutionists with their
>scientific views (much the way that atheistic evolutionists confuse
>them themselves).
I agree that "no Christian can accept that view", but this is *their*
"religious" view (praise God!). The claim that "evolution is
undirected, purposeless, 100% naturalistic" is the dominant
"scientific view":
"One might have thought that Provine and I would be bitterly opposed,
since I am a Christian who emphatically affirms that the world is the
product of a purposeful Creator, not a blind material mechanism. But
in fact I think Provine has done a lot to clarify the point at issue,
and I agree with him about how to define the question. I had noticed
that all the modern Darwinists with any scientific standing agreed
with Provine that evolution is a purposeless and undirected process.
I had also noticed that prominent academic Christians like to talk and
write as if the nineteenth- century idea that evolution might be a
purposeful process was still acceptable in late- twentieth-century
science. So while mainstream science educators take for granted that
science has discredited the "God created by evolution" compromise,
Christian educators tend to go on presenting "evolution" as if all
that agreement with the scientific establishment requires is a certain
flexibility in interpreting the details of Genesis." (Johnson P.E.,
"Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill.,
1995, p189)
>TG>Third, it seems that for some people biology is the only science
>where similar structure, function, mechanism is a sign of an ad hoc
>common design special creationist explanation exclusive of some other
>more unified explanation. As I've said before, if it weren't for a
>Biblical interpretation that demands special creation, the more
>unified explanation embodied in evolutionary ideas would be readily
>accepted. Many of us hear it shouting at us based on the
>evidence--of course, we don't share the Biblical interpretation that
>demands special creation.
SJ>I can understand why a non-theist might not "share the Biblical
>interpretation that demands special creation." After all, he/she has
>no alternative but undirected, purposeless, natural processes. But I
>have difficulty understandling why a *theist*,who presumably believes
>in a God who will one day raise up from the dust every human being who
>has ever lived (Dan 12:2; Jn 6:39; Ac 24:15; Jn 11:24; Rev 20:12-13),
>not only does not "share the Biblical interpretation that demands
>special creation" but seemingly outrightly rejects it as improbable,
>if not impossible? :-)
>
TG>Be careful what you say here. I believe that God created all
>things out of nothing and by the word of his power.
There is nothing to be "careful" about. :-) *All* theists believe in
the original ex-nihilo creation of "all things out of nothing".
My comment above refers to mediate creation, as the context
supplied by you about "biology is the only science where similar
structure, function, mechanism is a sign of an ad hoc common design
special creationist explanation exclusive of some other more unified
explanation..." indicates.
TG>Special creation applies to the origin of the universe in the first
>place and, I believe, to the origin of the human soul.
I was responding to your "...we don't share the Biblical
interpretation that demands special creation" which made no
distinction about what you regard as "special creation".
TG>But apart from those two instances I see no Biblical demand that
>anything else is "specially created" in the interventionist sense
>that PC and YEC seem to demand.
This is not a "PC and YEC" peculiarity. It is *your*
so-called "evolutionary creationism" that is the odd-man out. I have
already pointed out from your own trial defence home page you quote
Warfied as follows:
""A few citations from Warfield's own writings will suffice to make
the point that a theistically interpreted evolution is within in pale
of orthodoxy and that this extends even to the origin of Adam's body.
In his unpublished "Lectures on Anthropology" (Dec. 1888) (cited in
Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, p. 119) he writes: The upshot of the
whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity
to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of
evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work
apart from law and WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW INTERVENTION (in the giving of
the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction
of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed
authority of the Bible. But if we condition the theory by allowing
the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and HIS OCCASIONAL
SUPERNATURAL INTERFERENCE for the production of new beginnings by an
actual output of creative force, producing something new i.e.,
something not included even in posse in the preceding conditions, ;we
may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the
ordinary orthodox sense." (my emphasis)
TG>But there is nothing in that last sentence that make anyone think
>that I am not a theist or that God doesn't have the power to "raise
>up from the dust..."
This is a red-herring. I note that you do not directly answer my
question :-)
I made *no* claim that you personally were "not a theist" nor that you
personally believed "that God doesn't have the power to "raise up from
the dust...". First, I deliberately did not speak of you personally,
but was referring abstractly to "a theist", ie. theists generally.
Secondly, I actually said that theists *do* "...presumably believe in
a God who will one day raise up from the dust every human being who
has ever lived".
My point was that since theists do believe that God *does* "have the
power to "raise up from the dust..." why do those theists who call
themselves "theistic evolutionists" or "evolutionary creationists" not
only do not "share the Biblical interpretation that demands special
creation but seemingly outrightly rejects it as improbable, if not
impossible"?
That being cleared up, perhaps you will now answer my question? :-)
Happy Easter! :-)
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------