>(This is a public message. I am unsubscribed from the Reflector to
>catch up. If you reply via the Reflector, please cc. it to me. Thanks
>-SJ).
Well, as it happens I'm going to unsubscribe indefinitely from the
reflector in a couple days. So I'll keep it short.
[...]
>TI>I agree as well, and heck, I'm not even a believer (or an
>unbeliever).
>
>Sorry, Tim, but from a Biblical perspective, if you are not a
>believer, you are an unbleliever. There is no middle ground:
That's true. Perhaps it's better to say that I'm not convinced
there isn't a God. However, this does not prevent me from examining
the issue and thinking about what ideas are compatible with the
observations.
[...]
>TI>Personally, I find it hard to envision a scenario where a
>>progressive creationist explanation could possibly be ruled out.
>
>It would be ruled out if Darwin's original theory that
>macro-evolutionary change had occurred gradually, but small,
>step-by-step increments, slowly, over long periods of time:
Steve, one can never rule out that organisms were untouched or
unmodified by a "designer", even if you had a series of small,
incremental steps. All you could say is that an alternate
explanation is also consistent with the data. This is one
difficulty of historical studies. I think that both Terry and
Bill Hamilton have addressed this issue at least peripherally
in other threads (eg. their personal opinions about the influence
of God in the world).
[...]
>TI>This is especially true if as Steve over long periods
>>of time.
>
>I don't suggest that "God might occassionally shuffle a few DNA base
>pairs around". I suggest that God progressively modifies the genetic
>code in selected living organisms according to a plan and purpose.
"Shuffling DNA" _is_ modifying the genetic code. I certainly wasn't
proposing that God would randomly shuffle the DNA with no purpose
in mind. What would the point of that be?
>TI>Even if we were able to observe "large-scale" evolutionary events
>>in our lifetimes or were able to find an incredibly smooth line of
>>transitional forms, there is no way of eliminating PC as a possible
>>explanation of past or present transitions.
>
>Disagree. PC would not be viable if Darwin's origin theory of "an
>incredibly smooth line of transitional forms" had eventuated.
I do not accept that. PC cannot be ruled out because it can be
formulated as an additional mechanism of evolutionary change.
"Evolution + PC" is already minimally accepted by many PCer's.
Who knows, we might discover that finding an incredibly smooth,
progressive line of transitional forms in the fossil record
would be inconsistent with biological mechanisms. In fact, it
could turn out that the fossil record should look more "punc
eek-ish". If it was true that evolution should proceed in fits and
starts, one could propose that finding a smooth line of transitions
would be evidence for a designer that wanted to clearly outline
its handiwork by making sure the intermediates were recorded.
Perhaps finding finely-graded intermediates would make PC inviable
in your eyes, but not in another's. It wouldn't help the idea but
it certainly couldn't eliminate it, particularly if you thought
humans were special in some way.
>TI>Then again, considering there seems to be no idea of what to do
>>once one invokes a PC explanation, or how one develops an explanation
>>for the patterns of life using PC as a starting point, or even
>>whether it is necessary to invoke PC at this time, I wonder what is
>>to be scientifically gained from promoting PC.
>
>By "scientifically gained", you mean *materialistic-naturalistic*
>"scientific". Well, of course there is nothing to be "scientifically
>gained from promoting PC" if the existence of a personal-transcendent
>Creator is ruled out of court from the outset! If there is no Creator,
>then there can be no *creationism*:
No, I mean, gained in terms of either predictions or robust
explanations of the patterns observed. I'd like to know what it is
about the "grand design" proposed by PCers that tells us why chimps
and humans share homologies of roughly 99% at the protein sequence
level and 98% and the DNA sequence level, when as far as we can tell,
this level of homology is not required by function alone. I'd like
to see a robust hypothesis about why it took over 3 billion years of
directed design modification to produce us. Basically, I'd like to
see what you think PC provides in terms of accounting for the
patterns and processes of life that you propose evolution doesn't do
well. Pick a organism, any organism... or a family of organisms.
You propose that the creatures on earth are the result of specific,
progressive modification. Where do you plan to go with this idea?
Take the next step and propose a _science_ of creation.
There is nothing to suggest that the question cannot be approached
via the scientific method. SETI research programs manage this.
[big snip...]
>I would be the first to agree with Denis, that you should not let
>issues of PC vs TE keep you from embracing Christianity. Some
>(though a minority) of Christians are evolutionists, so the two
>are not necesarily mutually exlusive.
What does Johnson think about the possible reconciliation of
TE and Christianity? I thought he was skeptical about the
relationship (whereas I'm not).
>But the enormous worldwide success of Phil Johnson's books and
>lectures in the Christian world and the almost zero impact of
>theistic evolutionists like "Howard Van Till" indicates that
>Denis' blanket dismissal of "Johnson" as a "theological amateur"
>only applies in his unrepresentative scale of values! :-)o
Well, as you noted in a passage about Arthur Keith, people mostly see
what they want to see. Including Christian "majorities". ;^)
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)