To which Glenn responded:
"If there were no observational or theoretical expectation differences
between PC and TE I would agree with you, Gordie. But I think there is a
different expectation. Under PC God is free to create whatever He wants
Under TE there are limits. Thus in PC we would not expect constraints on
the form of the new species in the same sense that constraints are
expected under TE."
Frankly, I don't understand the basis for your last sentence. Despite the
fact that it begins with the word "thus", it does not follow as a logical
imperative from the previous sentence, and I see no reason why it should
be true. As you said, "Under PC God is free to create whatever He wants."
I feel confident that you do not believe you can read the mind of God.
Then Glenn wrote:
>> For example, phyla represent the basic body plans of various plants and
animals. In the Cambrian Explosion, all but one of the 20-30(depending on
the taxonomist) modern phyla are represented. But there are also fifteen
to 20 other phyla represented in the Burgess shale. (See Stephen J. Gould,
Wonderful Life, p. 100.) Thus the Cambrian had between 35 to 50 phyla.
15-20 of them went extinct in the Cambrian.
After this period of time, only the Bryozoa first appear in the
Ordovician. Since that time absolutely no new phyla have been created on
earth. Why? Certainly it can not be claimed that God is incapable of
creating a new phylum but is it reasonable to assume that after an initial
creative period, God got boring and stayed with the same limited
repertoire?
It would seem to me that the data here fits better with TE than with PC
because the subsequent forms were limited in organizational body plan
which would be expected within modern views of evolution. (But not within
the older views) <<
I agree; this does seem to fit in well with the TE perspective. But
unless you can read the mind of God, I see no reason why this does not fit
into the PC perspective as well.
It still seems to me that it is possible that both the PC and TE positions
are correct - in that no amount of effort is going to demonstrate that one
view is correct and the other is wrong. (The last phrase is important.)
The reason is that neither position really predicts anything that gets
beyond an understanding of how God did things. In most case, we can not
read the mind of God, and we really don't know - though we love to
speculate or infer from theological perspectives and biblical texts. When
the mind of God is clearly stated in the Bible, I find that TE's and PC's
accept it as well. Of course, Christians do not always interpret a
biblical passage in the same way, but this seems beside the point under
discussion. Perhaps it is not beside the point, and TE's and PC's approach
the Scriptures somewhat differently. Nevertheless, this does not counter
my point.
Gordie