On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 05:08:32 -0400 you wrote:
SJ>But if you and Terry insist, like Loyola's Jesuits, in baptising me
>at sword-point as an "evolutionist", then you will find me a most
>troublesome and recalcitrant "convert"! :-)
BH>Oh come on, Steve. How could you become more troublesome than
>you already are? :-)
Baptise me as an "evolutionist" and find out! :-)
SJ>And it will also then show how vacuous and meaningless is the term
>"evolution"! :-)
BH>You don't need to. Walter ReMine is currently trying to do that in
>his book. One at a time is quite enough.
IMHO that is the strong suite of Walter's book. Although I am coming
around more and more to his "biotic message" theory. I found this
quote as support for same:
"One of the essential and most important differences between
vertebrate and invertebrate eyes is that in the former the receptors
(light sensitive cells) point outward toward the choroid (inverted),
whereas in the invertebrates they mostly point inward toward the lens
(verted). But for that obstacle we should have been deluged with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
theories on the original evolution of the vertebrate eye from the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
invertebrates." (J. Prince, Comparative Anatomy of the Eye, 334,
^^^^^^^^^^^
1956)."
(Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. I,
Regency: Nashville, 1991, p74-75)
This fits message theory, ie.. an Intelligent Designer ensured that
the development of the eye did not look like evolution.
SJ>I will in future remind you every time you object to
>my creationism, that I am, according to you both, a fellow
>"evolutionist".
BH>And I will remind you that you are deviating from statements you
>have made previously.
What "statements". For well over a year, I have accepted "common
ancestry" and I even made a major post about it cc. Terry and Glenn.
BH>The point is that whether purpose or randomness drove a process is
>not necessarily discernable using the methods of science.
Agreed. But what has this inherent limitation of "science" got to do
with me being automatically an evolutionist if I accept common
ancestry? The above is about "a process" (ie. mechanism) not a
*relationship* (common ancestry).
SJ>I think in the end you will find my creationist views
>too indigestible, and you will expel me from your august company! :-)
BH>Well, I'd rather argue with you than with most creationists.
Thanks. Unfortunately not all share your preference! :-)
BH>In any case, I'm not sure what "august company" you're identifying
>me with. A while ago you told me I couldn't be an evolutionist
>because I insist that God's sovereign will is driving any evolution
>that may occur.
I am not sure if I put it exactly like that. But one of my arguments
is that TEs who allow God's intervention in the origin of the
universe, life and human beings, are really inconsistent PCs.
BH>Just tell me how to conduct an investigation for the
>purpose of determining whether randomness or purpose drives evolution
>and I'll keep quiet (if I'm satisfied with your methodology. Heh, heh
>:-)
Simple. Its the old so-called "false alternative" that Brian is so
unhappy about. :-) If naturalism cannot prove its grand metaphysical
claim that the universe, life and life's major groups were the product
of purposeless natural processes, with no involvement or intervention
of a Creator necessary, then it is open for theists to hold its grand
metaphysical claim that the universe, life and life's major groups
were the product of intelligent design by a Creator who made
everything for a purpose.
The role of a theistic science would then be to determine the relative
frequency of involvement or intervention by that Creator, in close
dialogue with sound Biblical scholarship.
BH>Lost in evolutionary/creationist/? limbo...
Hmmm. Perhaps you should keep reading Walter's book! :-)
God bless.
Steve
PS: Sorry if this is a double-up
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------