On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:38:06 -0400 (EDT), lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
LH>On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>By not addressing my substantive point that: "`TE has no original
>theory of `basic design' unique to itself", ie. "it believes in the
>same random mutation + natural selection mechanism as Naturalistic
>Evolution, with no intervention by God", do you not implicitly
>confirm it? :-)
LH>Please.
>I've posted megabytes on the difference between TE and naturalism.
>Must I continually jump through that ugly, frayed old hoop every time
>you hold it out? :-)
No. But in all your "megabytes" you have not really explained "the
difference between TE and naturalism". :-) In my message to
Bill we might be getting somewhere. He seems to be saying that:
1. There is no "difference between TE and naturalism"
*observationally*;
2. "naturalism" claims that mutation is "random" in the sense of
*undirected*, but "TE" claims it is "random" in the sense of
directed but *unpredictable*.
LH>Steve, do you think there is any important difference between the
>Christian view of microevolution and the atheistic view of
>microevolution? If so, please explain.
Sorry Loren, but this might be why your "megabytes" have been wasted?
You invariable introduce red-herrings, like "microevolution" and
stellar evolution. The issue is *biological macroevolution*.
SJ>Now if "TE" could actually develop a "theory of `basic design'
>unique to itself" that differs in its predictions from what
>"Naturalistic Evolution", would predict (this is now difficult
>because NE has been progressively accommodated to fit the facts),
>then "TE" would join the ranks of theistic realists who believe that
>God actually makes a difference in the real world:
LH>Don't stop there! Theistic realists also need a theory of
>stellar formation which has predictions different from what
>"naturalistic stellar evolution" would predict, don't they?
>Theistic realists also need a theory of microevolution (say, rapid
>speciation in a new environment) with different predictions from
>naturalistic evolution, don't they? If not, why not??
See above. The issue is "basic design", ie. *macroevolution*:
"The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am
writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64
kilobytes lone byte is used to hold each character of text). The
computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The
brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some
ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have
each more than a thousand 'electric wires' connecting them to other
neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one
of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand
times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire
computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the
elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree
that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I
give up. No, on second thoughts I don't give up, because one of my
aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of
biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to
it." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991,
pp.xiii)
"stellar formation" and "microevolution", have little, if anything to
do do with this. These are therefore just red-herrings.
LH>You don't have to answer. You've already posted answers in the
>past months explaining your scientific and theological reasons for
>why you think "new biological designs" belongs in the "intervention"
>category (like God's intervention in salvation history), while the
>formation of the sun does not, just as I've given my scientific and
>theological reasons for my expectations. Let's wait a few months
>before we trot them all out again.
Sorry, but I did not see your "You don't have to answer" before I
answered. Just add it to the "megabytes"! :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------