Re: Early Cambrian explosion

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swau.edu)
Mon, 08 Feb 1999 08:23:14 -0800

At 01:12 PM 2/5/99 -0500, Howard wrote:
>Art,
>
>We could have a fruitful discussion on this topic, but only if we define
>the question carefully.
>
>Help us to understand what you see as the fundamental question and the
>spectrum of possible answers.
>
>One question that you posed is: "Where did the complexity [of the earliest
>known fossilized metazoans] come from?"
>
>To this question you seem to be offering only two radically different
>answers:
>
>1. They were "created," by which I presume you mean that their specific
>form was imposed on matter by an extraordinary act of the Creator, an act
>that was necessary because the simpler materials of the Creation were not
>capable of bringing about a formational history with these metazoans as the
>outcome.

Lets say for the moment we do not have Scripture and are left to draw
conclusions based only on the physical data: what conclusion would you
draw? That's what I mean in this context bu "created"
>
>Is this what you meant by "created"?
>
>2. "...it came from nothing..." This is, of course, a very vague clause. I
>presume that you have some form of naturalistic/materialistic worldview in
>mind here, but could you be more specific?

Sure, but not on the basis of the empirical data alone.
>
>Finally, are these the only two alternatives available to us -- either (1)
>"Episodic" creationist theism (or "special," or "fiat," or whatever term
>you prefer), or (2) evolutionary naturalism?

No, I could probably come up with a dozen or more fanciful schemes that
could cloud the waters, but I think most people acquainted with the data
involved and the issues would allow that statement.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu