Life's Transitions

Glenn.Morton@ORYX.COM
Tue 20 Jun 1995 11:55 CT

Mark Phillips writes:
>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.

PC fits the facts, but can not make any predictions of any kind. Go back to
the mid70's and consider the situation in relation to the whale transition.
Evolution predicted that there should be some type of transitional fossil with
legs between the Mesonychids and the Whales. What could PC predict about this
morphological gap? While evolutionists could not tell you precisely what you
would find, they could tell you the broad outlines, i.e. a critter with both
mesonychid and cetacean features which had four feet. The problem PC has with
prediction of what should be found in the fossil record is that we can not
possibly know what God would or would not have created. Most predictions from
most creationists of the time was that there was a gap which would never be
filled.
What happened? The evolutionist prediction was fulfilled; they found
ambulocetus. The PC position was not harmed because the theory of PC didn't
predict that there would be no critter like ambulocetus only the advocates of
PC predicted that. Thus, PC can accept any piece of finding at all and never
be harmed, but it can not tell you what will be found in the future.

Now, quantitative predictions are not always necessary for a science. Science
can not predict the quantitative location of a particular electron next year.
This does not mean that physics is useless or that Schrodinger was wasting his
time.

You outline two models first evolution then PC then write:
"Is there any reason to reject the latter model in favour of the former (other
than an appeal to symmetry between 1 and 2)?"

I can think of a theological reason for rejecting the latter, PC model. The
Scripture says that God created things in 7 days. I know the arguments that
the days can be periods of time, the plain fact is that long periods of time
do not have evenings and mornings. Thus the PC view must make the Bible not
say what I believe it IS saying. We don't talk about the evening and morning
of the Cretaceous Period, nor the evening and morning of the Mesozoic Era.
The language doesn't fit long ages.The creative acts took place on single
days. Secondly, God must have engaged in tens of thousands of creative acts
over the years, so what is this stuff about creation being done in seven
events/acts/days or periods? How do you divide the geologic ages into seven
periods? On what evidence? PC raises some thorny and unaswered questions.

Why must God be limited to creating each species rather than creating a
system which can in turn produce the varieties? I love those wave tanks you
can buy in which blue water lies under clear mineral oil. The motor causes
the tank to tip back and forth producing waves. The creator of this
time-waster could have come to my office and created each individual wave form
me if he wanted to, but other customers would want him to do the same for
them. He solved his difficulty by attaching a motor which would produce each
different wave. In a very real sense, he is the creator of each wave even
though he is nowhere in sight. Why must we limit God to standing in the
office?

glenn