Stephen replied:
>>Here we seem to have a form of Lamarckism? According to Darwinism, "need"
has nothing to do with evolution. Please clarify.<<
No Stephen, not Lamarkism! I probably spoke a little loosely or you are
being a bit too literal. But needs are not ruled out even in neoDarwinism.
An insect population assaulted by insecticides is desperately in need of a
mutation which can dispose of the toxic chemical in its body before it does
its damage. That is precisely what happens in nature. The mutations in the
individuals of the population are in random directions in the phase space.
Some bump into the 'walls' of the functional 'cavern' other mutations find
the small pathways into other 'rooms' where the proper functionality is found
for the "needed" detoxification.
I wrote:
>>Now. if God made a real cavern system, and placed you in it.He
>has delimited where you can go. You can not go through the walls.
>Similarly, if God created the "cavernous" phase space of DNA, He has
>delimited what sequences of DNA are successful. This is not
>naturalistic. God set out the pathways before the foundation of the
>universe.<<
Stephen replied.
>>It's interesting in another post you are claiming there are no limits
to genetic change, yet here you are claiming there are limits.
Again, please clarify.<<
Stephen, let me make a suggestion. Go get a book on nonlinear dynamics and
learn what phase spaces are like. Find a mathematician and have him explain
it. It would be so much easier to learn this from some book in your lap or
colleague across the table than from e-mail 12,500 miles away!
In no way did I say there were limits to variation which is what I think you
are trying to say about my example. In a cavern system you can't go in any
direction you choose, but that does not mean that you can't go west. It
means you might have to go east, down, south, then west to end up west of
your original position. Come on, Stephen, a cavern system is not that
difficult a concept to visualize!!!
Stephen wrote:
>>You seem to deny God any ability to intervene in His world?<<
Stephen, you don't listen to what others are saying. Bill Hamilton this week
mentioned that this was not an argument about what God could do. God could,
is able, is powerful enough, to intervene personally at any point He chooses
to. The question and argument are about whether He did intervene at any
given point or not. I AM NOT DENYING GOD ANY ABILITY!!!!!! God is GOD!
He can do what He wants. But why do you seem to think that God MUST
intervene because you believe He must? Is God at your beck and call and must
intervene at the points in history which you deem fit?
Stephen wrote of Hampe's experimental modification of a chicken leg to a
characteristic reptilian leg form.
>>No. It supports Progressive Creation. The modification was done by an
intelligent designer, namely "Frenchman Armand Hampe".<<
Hampe did not design the leg or the biochemical system which created the leg
of both forms. Unless you think Hampe is God! Hampe merely discovered what
God had designed into a chicken leg.
Stephen wrote:
>>I am genuinely sorry if this upsets you Glenn, but your position does
seem to be "fully naturalistic", once the cavern system is set up.
Your "beings" seem to just wander around the caves without any further
divine involvement. If it is not so, please clarify.<<
What upsets me is that you and I do not speak the same language. I thought I
spoke English. Obviously I don't. There is not a single materialist who
would agree with your characterization of my position as 'fully naturalistic'
Please go talk to a philosopher if you want verification of this.
Stephen, I am going to take a break from responding to your posts. We are
covering the same ground over and over like two kids who repeat, 'tis so' and
'tis not' over and over. I have clarified until I am blue in the face.
Either I am totally unable to write an English sentence (which may very well
be the case) or you are unable or unwilling to understand them. I
surrender.. You have worn me down and I frankly see no possibility of
further fruitful discussions with you. Covering the same ground over and
over and over is an extremely frustrating experience.
I think I want to cry here. Normally I have a lot of patience but I
have just reached the end of mine. Maybe some time in the future when we
learn the same language we can resume what was at one time a fairly
interesting debate. I am convinced there is absolutely no argument, evidence
or data which will convince you that I am not throwing God out of the
universe by accepting evolution. Let's just agree to disagree on everything
and go our separate ways.
glenn