On 12 Jul 1996 21:55:10 EDT, pdd@gcc.cc.md.us wrote:
SJ>I said nothing about "previous sequences by evolution". I am
>proposing *progressive creation* not "evolution.
PD>Sorry, that's not the way I interpreted it, the problem may have
>been on my end. The concept appeared so close to Gould's model that
>I easily misinterpreted what you were saying.
OK. But I have no problem with taking Gould's evidence and
re-interpreting it from a progressive creationist perspective.
PD>You get an "A" for creativity, pun intended! :-)
Thanks...I think! :-)
SJ>I don't claim that it was "evolution" in the first place! :-) The
>word "evolution" is so vague that I prefer not to use it, unless it
>is clearly defined.
PD>Agreed
SJ>"People called saltationists believe that macromutations are a
>means by which major jumps in evolution could take place in a single
>generation.
PD>Then you are forseeing more of a situation of "saltational
>creation", i.e. one generational genetic macro-changes across a
>species or population of organisms, by creation, rather than
>"saltational evolution"? (Just trying to understand your model
>more clearly.)
Not necessarily. My basic claim is that God intervened at strategic
points in biological history by analogy with the way He has
intervened at strategic points in Biblical history. How exactly He
did this is not clear, but the essential feature is that His
intervention injected new information and direction in a way that
unaided natural processes, could not accomplish in the time frame.
SJ>But the fossil record shows new designs emerging from old designs
PD>Perhaps "suggests" is a better term... the emergence is not
>shown, only a difference between strata or between fossils.
I am happy with either "shows" or "suggests".
PD>We need to be careful about taking a quantum leap in modeling on
>insufficient data. For example, in your model one would expect to
>find numerous examples of clear and convincing :-) evidence of
>immediate transition, within many geologic strata, somewhere, of
>both the source species and the newly created species.
No. My "model" is controlled by the actual fossil record. I would not
expect to find many transitional forms because Divine Selection, as
opposed to Natural Selection, because of its faster, more direct
proceeding from a starting point to a planned destination would not
leave many intermediates:
"A mysterious process that produces dozens of complex animal groups
directly from single-celled predecessors, with only some words like
"fast-transition" in between, may be called "evolution"-but the term
is being used more in the sense of Grasse's heresy than of
Dobzhansky's Darwinian orthodoxy. Each of those Cambrian animals
contained a variety of immensely complicated organ systems. How can
such innovations appear except by the gradual accumulation of
micromutations, unless there was some supernatural intervention? It
is not only that the Darwinian theory requires a very gradual line of
descent from each Cambrian animal group back to its hypothetical
single-celled ancestor. Because Darwinian evolution is a
purposeless, chance-driven process, which would not proceed directly
from a starting point to a destination, there should also be thick
bushes of side branches in each line. As Darwin himself put it, if
Darwinism is true the Precambrian world must have "swarmed with
living creatures" many of which were ancestral to the Cambrian
animals. If he really rejects the artifact theory of the Precambrian
fossil record, Gould also rejects the Darwinian theory of evolution."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning", in Buell J. & Hearn
V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for
Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp13-14)
SJ>Rom 1:20 obviously is not claiming that mankind was present at
>"the creation of the world", so any argument based on the relative
>length of the time interval between the "creation of the world" and
>the creation of man seems contrived. :-)
>But we must agree to differ on whether it "conforms best".
PD>And on our respective readings on Romans 1:18-20, but disagree
>agreeably as brothers in Christ we do... and I thank you for the
>kindness in our discussion.
Thank you. As Charles Hodge points out, our *interpretation* of
Scripture must take into account the facts of the natural world and
be adjusted by those facts:
"But when the question is asked, How long was the universe in passing
from its chaotic to its ordered state? such diversity is at once
manifested. According to the more obvious interpretation of the
first chapter of Genesis, this work was accomplished in six days.
This therefore has been the common belief of Christians. It is a
belief founded on a given interpretation of the Mosaic record, which
interpretation, however, must be controlled not only by the laws of
language, but by facts." (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", Vol. I,
1892, James Clark & Co: London, 1960 reprint, p557-558).
and
"As the Bible is of God, it is certain that there can be no conflict
between the teachings of the Scriptures and the facts of science. It
is not with facts, but with theories, believers have to contend.
Many such theories have, from time to time, been presented,
apparently or really inconsistent with the Bible. But these theories
have either proved to be false, or to harmonize with the Word of God,
properly interpreted. The church has been forced more than once to
alter her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate the discoveries
of science. But this has been done without doing any violence to the
Scriptures or in any degree impairing their authority.." (Hodge C.,
"Systematic Theology", Vol. I, 1892, James Clark & Co: London, 1960
reprint, p573)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------