That would be me :)
>
>"From a theological point of view, my immediate knee jerk
>reaction to this is revulsion since it seems to make God
>into a liar."
>
>This was in response to my "Eagle creation thought problem."
>
>I don't have that reaction at all, and I am puzzled why anyone should
>have it.
>
>Assume a slightly different scenario. For whatever reasons, God decides
>tomorrow to creat a unicorn.
>
>He does so, perfectly (thoroughly). A whole herd of them, why not?
>
>Now we scientists begin our tests. Whatever tests are appropriate.
>What possible test could we make to falsify the
>"this-beast-is-the-result-of-common-descent" position?
>
>I can think of none. Does that make God a liar? Of course not.
>
>Nor can we falsify the
>"this-beast-is-the-result-of-divine-creation" position, of course.
>
I'm becoming more and more confused :), so let me ask a
question to hopefully clarify. Which of the following
best describes this scenario ?:
1) God specially creates individual species with the deliberate
intention of making them appear to be related by common ancestry
even though they are not.
2) God specially creates according to his own divine will and
plan. This plan includes perfection in the sense of "thoroughness"
(whatever this means??). Scientists, acting in a thoroughly
Kuhnsian manner, interpret the results in terms of descent with
modification from a common ancestor.
3) Something else.
Option (1) is how I have been interpreting things, which
I still maintain is lying. Deliberately making something
look like what it is not.
(2) is not lying of course. But here I would again appeal
to history. Cuvier's idea of a perfect (thorough) creation
would be one that had no hint whatsoever of common ancestry.
I hesitate to try an answer to your question since the
concept of perfection in terms of thoroughness is not
clear to me. Hopefully I can assume that "thorough" does
not mean "appears to be related by common descent" :-).
So, let me just try a short answer. If the evidence had
sorted itself out as Cuvier was expecting it to, then
common ancestry would have been falsified.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"... we have learned from much experience that all
philosophical intuitions about what nature is going
to do fail." -- Richard Feynman