>Thanks for the encouragement.
> Now to your statement above. I can understand your interpretation
> of what Gould wrote but I really don't think he's limitting this to
> special creation. If this is his intention then he should say so
> clearly. As it stands he says that evolution is a path that a sensible
> God would never tread. Yet TE's believe God did in fact take this path.
Gould's statement is ambiguous and I see now could well include TE's.
> I also don't think oddities and funny solutions prove God didn't
> specially create especially if you view this as a scientific argument.
> God is God, and he can be odd and funny if he so chooses. Also,
> if one wants to consider this as an argument for evolution (and
> Gould does it seems) then considering only special creation by
> the God of the Bible would be an argument from the false (or
> missing) alternative. What kind of oddities would Descartes'
> demon come up with? I'm not trying to be cute here, my point
> is that creationists have a lot of trouble trying to find scientific
> arguments for their position, for reasons along the lines we've
> been discussing. Turnabout is fair play. If creationists aren't
> allowed theological arguments then neither is Gould.
>
I acknowledge the fallacy. The argument could be a little better
formulated, perhaps, by saying that funny solutions favour evolution
over special creation (without specifying whether some other option
(eg PC) is superior to evolution). I would want to quickly add that
is not just that the solutions are funny, but that they suggest
history. (The recurrent nerve, for instance, appears to trace a path
which recalls the pattern found in the lower vertebrates.) So and,
consciously getting theological here, it could be argued that God
would not create so as to give an impression of history when in fact
this were not the case. If I were to limit myself to methodological
naturalism, I would simply argue that evolution has enormous
explanatory power. It accounts for design through natural selection
and for strange features through historical accident.
> At the risk of going on too long (a bad habit of mine :),
You are easy to listen to.
>
> This is the type thing I've been trying to say but not nearly
> so well as Scadding does. Stripped of the theology, "imperfect"
> structures provide evidence for evolution only through homology.
Agreed! This is a good insight which has been well stated and which
has influenced what I have written above.
>
> I've been thinking along exactly these lines so I look forward to
> reading Peacoke. Any book in particular that you might suggest?
Yes, Creation and the World of Science (1979) Clarendon Press,
Oxford. However, while I think Peacocke is good on the
science/faith interface his Christology and view of the atonement is
heterodox. Do you know of Donald Mackay's book 'The Clockwork
Image." I would read this first if you haven't read it already.
>
> First of all, let me say that I agree with this statement. But also
> I want point out that this answer is not too terribly different from
> Richard Owen's view of design. I hope I'm remembering correctly
> (perhaps Paul can correct me if I'm wrong), but I believe Owen
> actually expected imperfections in individual components of a
> complicated structure since he felt optimization of the whole
> would necessarily require concessions be made with components.
> Gould's criticism provides no answer to Owen except the theological
> objection about paths that sensible God's won't follow.
>
I think Owen is right, but that this cannot be the whole story. I
don't see in the recurrent nerve story any concession to optomize the
whole.
>
I think two very valuable threads running through your posts, Brian, is
the need to play fair about including theology in one's argument
and to more precisely formulate the arguments.
Thanks.
>
________________________________________________
Mike L Anderson, PhD
Director: Christian Academic Network
mla@iafrica.com
78 Balfour Road, Rondebosch, 7700