Glenn wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
> > I would have thought that Progressive Creation is a "hypothesis that
> > explains the data".
>
>Can you tell me one prediction which PC makes that would allow me to look at
>the scientific data and determine that PC fits the facts better.
Does PC fit the facts worse?
Can one really make quantitative predictions using evolutionary theory? On a
micro-change level perhaps you can??? But on a larger scale I would have thought
genetics and "the relationship between DNA and functionality" is not sufficiently
well understood to make any realistic quantitative predictions. (I would be very
interested to know if I am wrong.)
Surely the best we can say is that:
1. evolutionary "survival of the fittest" occurs at a micro level and explains well
how viruses and bacteria change.
2. it seems reasonable that evolutionary "survival of the fittest" _could_conceivably_
explain the emergence of different species in the fossil record.
But is 2 actually what happens. Consider the following model:
1. (as above)
2. it seems reasonable that progressive creation "sequential miracles" _could_conceivably_
explain the emergence of different species in the fossil record.
Is there any reason to reject the latter model in favour of the former (other than an
appeal to symmetry between 1 and 2)?
Mark.