Hello,
-31C up here . . . and I don't want to hear a word about your swimming
pool!!!!
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Stephen Jones wrote:
> I think you may misunderstand my use of Progressive Creation? It is
> not YEC-style de-novo creations of whole creatures over a longer
> time-frame.
I am starting to see that. And with one of your latest posts regarding
the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis you certainly do not
fall in the middle of that camp. You write:
>I regard Gn 2:7 as a *picture*, not which reflects an underlying
>literal, historical reality:
>
>"It is argued that the picture of God working like a potter with wet
>earth, anthropomorphically breathing life into man, constructing woman
>from a rib, with an idyllic garden, trees with theological
>significance, and a talking serpent, is the language of theological
>symbolism and not of literal prose. The theological truth is there,
>and this symbolism is the instrument of inspiration. We are not to
>think in terms of scientific and anti-scientific, but in terms of
>scientific and pre-scientific. The account is then pre-scientific and
>in theological symbolism which is the garment divine inspiration chose
>to reveal these truths for their more ready comprehension by the
>masses of untutored Christians.
This hermeneutic is not characteristic of the PCs . . . Stephen, you are
on the "slippery slope" sliding "down" to those "oxymoronic" evolutionary
creationists :-)
> This view is very close to Theistic Evolution, in fact some would say
> it is.
Yes, and the more of your posts I read, the further you seem not to be a
PC.
>But it is not evolution because it's essential element is
> God's direct supernaturalistic intervention in the natural world. I
> do not base this on a verse here and there but on the sort of
> interventionist God the whole Bible reveals from cover to cover.
You quote de Beer:
> "The attempt to
> find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been
> given up as hopeless...what mechanism can it be that results in the
> production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of
> their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question
> in 1938, and it has not been answered.' " (Bird W. R., "The Origin
> of Species Revisited", Vol. I, Regency: Nashville, 1991, p95).
>
> This is evidence for an external plan that transcends the organisms
> themselves.
Firstly, you quote de Beer who did most of his scientific work before the
1950s (actually he worked on neural crest and odontoblasts [of course, I
had to throw in something about teeth -:)]), and then he focussed on
Darwin scholarship. I would be interested to know what year de Beer made
that statement because it is terribly out of date. Bird is a YEC lawyer,
so it doesn't suprize me he is not in the current professional literature.
Nevertheless. There are homologous genes. A classic is sonic hedge hog
which is expressed in the limb's Zone of Polarizing Activity in (1) fish,
(2) frog, (3) bird and (4) mouse. Moreover, the HOX D series (9-13) is
also expressed in the developing mouse and bird (the only ones examined).
> Again, you misunderstand my version of PC. I believe there may be a
> "real genetic connection between two groups". The divine archetype is
> really played out in the tape of life.
You are more of an EC than a PC.
> I have no problem with "the molecular data" getting "better". I can
> see God as the Master Programmer who designed the the enormously
> complex HOX genes networks for His sole use, and manipulates them
> to accompolish His purposes. IMHO HOX genes are a big problem for
> Neo-Darwinism's "blind watchmaker" model.
I disagree with regard to the "necessity" of God's manipulation of HOX
genes, and very much agree with your HOX/"blind watchmaker" comment.
>The idea of evolution (an unfolding
> from within) is competely antithetical to the the idea of creation.
Please explain this.
> DL> We don't believe in a Blind Watchmaker. He is a very open-eyed
> >Creator. Being an evolutionist as I am does not necessarily mean one
> >believes the process is dysteleological--I AM AN UTTERLY COMMITTED
> >TELEOLOGIST. And, I am thoroughly committed to natural
> >theology--yes, "the heavens do declare the glory of God." Don't
> >conflate the evolutionary creationist position with that of Dawkins.
>
> Good! Then we are probably very close.
You are closer to the EC position than you think. Theologically you
aren't, but I believe scientifically you are . . . sort of like a crypto-EC.
>But I believe the EC position
> is only half Biblical because it correctly holds that God works
> through His natural laws, but incorrectly rules out God acting
> directly and supernaturally complementary to those natural laws.
God can certainly do want He wants. The question is, "Did He intervene
by ways above the laws He set down and maintains?" God certainly does work
through natural laws. Think developmental biology. Is the
creation of a baby by natural laws "unbiblical"? If God does act
directly and supernaturally in embryological development, then I would
like to see where.
> SJ>IMHO the shortening of time frames supports PC better than
> >Darwinist macro-evolution. Remember that according to Dawkins, the
> >blind watchmaker can work only if there is sufficient time:
Firstly, please appreciate that the evolutionists on the reflector like
myself are not BLIND WATCHMAKER evolutionists. We are teleologists.
Regarding your question, do consider the new subdiscipline of
developmental evolutionary biology because it is accounting for the
speed of macro-evolution. In particular, viewing evolution in the light
of epigenetics (eg, the HOX combinatorial code) allows for rapid change.
> DL>Part of the problem with our debates is terminology. "Darwinist"
> >macro-evolution is not the evolution held by Dawkins. Darwin through
> >all six editions of the Origin of Species believed in a teleological
> >evolution (That's a chapter in my theology PhD). For that matter,
> >right up to the year he died in 1882, and yes he fipped around on the
> >issue, he believed in teleology.
>
> Firstly I don't use Darwinist in the sense of exactly what
> Charles Darwin believed. I use it as Dawkins and Gould use it today -
> the broad Neo-Darwinist theory of macro-evolution involving random
> mutation and various selection mechanisms.
>
> Secondly, I don't believe that Darwin really believed in teleology
> in any meaningful way. This was Charles Hodge's considered opinion and
> it would be supported by modern Darwinists like Gould and Dawkins.
> Most consider Darwin's reference to a Creator as either a hands-off
> Deistic First Cause or just a sop to the Church and/or his Unitarian
> wife.
Sorry Stephen but you are very wrong here. Do read:
(1) James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies (1979)
(2) David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders (1987)
(3) And if I may, my own PhD dissertation on evangelical reactions to
Darwinism including a chapter on Darwin's own relgious evolution.
All three authors are evangelicals. Hodge wrote in 1874 "What Is
Darwinism?", but he did not have accesss to Darwin's personal notebooks,
diaries or letters. Darwin is clearly teleological in these works
though he occassionally slips into a dysteleological mode, but
that is the exception, not the rule.
Remember the first generation of Darwin scholars were scientists and not
historians. And they were steeped in Whiggish historiography and wrote
positivistic "hagiographies".
> DL>But coming back to the rapidity of organic change, it certainly
> >gives one the impression that there is Someone behind the process.
>
> Agreed. But I am prepared to stick my neck out and affirm that that
> Someone is not only "behind" the process, but He intervenes in it at
> strategic points, giving it new content and direction.
OK. Stephen, "stick your neck out" and give me some examples where God
intervened in the progressive creation of species, describing to me the
exact molecular (1) addition and/or (2) manipulation of a genetic program.
> DL>However, one does not need to posit God's direct hand in these
> >rapid changes.
>
> Why would a Christian theist describe this as a "need" as though
> positing "God's direct hand" was something to be avoided?
Because it sets one up for the classic problem of a God of the Gaps. If
you give me an example of a gap (as requested above), the great problem
is that it is going to be filled in the future by a newly discovered
mechanism. That is the history of science.
> Sorry, but this is one "PC brother" who believes fully "that there is
> design in the process"! :-)
You're a crypto-EC.
> But I also believe that God can and
> did plan to intervene in the process. That is the pattern of God's
> working from Genesis to Revelation.
There is a theological extrapolation here:
It is that since God
intervened in the affairs of man as clearly depicted by the Bible, then
if follows that God directly intervened in the Progressive Creation of
life. That is a possible consequence, but not a NECESSARY one.
It is clear that the Bible informs your science. But let us try
employing this in a related scientific field--developmental biology.
Let me use your the structure of your argument in hope of making a
point. What do you think my colleagues in development biology
(including some Christian ones) would say if I were to them:
"But I also believe that God can and did plan to intervene in the
process of EMBRYOLOGY. That is the pattern of God's working
from Genesis to Revelation."
So every time I come on to a problem in the development (say like the one
I am working on right now--dental initiation in the oral epithelium), do
I just bring out the "trump card" and say , "Well, that must be where God
has intervened"? If this becomes one's methodology, then one's theology
of God's activity reflects our ignorance of the scientific issue under
investigation.
> Sorry Denis, but modern materialistic-naturalistic science will not
> accept "contributions of the PCs and YECs". When a respected
> evolutionist origin of life researcher named Prof. Dean Kenyon
> proposed Intelligent Design as a possible scientific hypothesis based
> on the evidence, he was removed from teaching duties. To criticise
> creationists for not making a contribution to mainstream scientific
> debate is a bit like Saddam Hussein criticising the Iraqi people for
> not forming an opposition party! :-)
Stephen, the reason is that PCs and YECs are usually not scientists. Oh,
there are the Kenyons, Gishes, and Morrises . . . but they are an anomly.
> And thank you for this opportunity to clarify my view of PC.
Yes, and thank you to you. It is always a pleasure, you help me clarify
my views as well.
Blessings,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------