On Sat, 16 Dec 1995 23:14:41 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
SJ>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.
DL>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:
SJ>I regard Gn 2:7 as a *picture*, not which reflects an underlying
>literal, historical reality:
The "not" above is a typo. It should read "...a *picture*, which
reflects..."
DL>"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.
DL>This hermeneutic is not characteristic of the PCs . . . Stephen,
>you are on the "slippery slope" sliding "down" to those "oxymoronic"
>evolutionary creationists :-)
Sorry to disappoint you Denis, but it was written by Bernard Ramm, a
Progressive Creationist! :-)
SJ>This view is very close to Theistic Evolution, in fact some would
>say it is.
DL>Yes, and the more of your posts I read, the further you seem not to
>be a PC.
My claim is that all you TE's are really closet PC's! :-) There does
not seem to be one among you who do not allow some direct divine
intervention in biological history (eg. origin of life, creation of
man, etc). If you were consistent evolutionists you would not allow
*any* direct divine intervention in biological history. If you allow
some divine intervention in biological history, then the difference
between your TE and my PC is really one of degree, not of kind.
SJ>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.
DL>You quote de Beer:
SJ>"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).
SJ>This is evidence for an external plan that transcends the organisms
>themselves.
DL>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.
De Beer's book was dated 1971, so I presume the statement was still
true then. In fact, it was still true in 1985, because Denton
(a molecular biologist) affirmed it:
"The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would
have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research
could have shown that homologous structures were specified by
homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological
development. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of
"true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor" . But it
has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way.
Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic
systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into
embryology. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for
homology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, British embryologist and
past Director of the British Museum of Natural History, in a succinct
monograph Homology, an Unresolved Problem." (De Beer G., "Homology:
An Unsolved Problem", Oxford University Press: London, 1971)
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
1985, p145).
Indeed, it was presumably true in 1993 because Johnson mentioned
it in "Darwin on Trial" (1993), pp188-189, and his book was critiqued
by Gould who picked up some scientific errors but did not challenge
this important point.
DL>Bird is a YEC lawyer, so it doesn't suprize me he is not in the
>current professional literature.
Sorry Denis, but why can not a "YEC lawyer" keep abreast of "the
current professional literature"? Wendell Bird is not necessarily a
"YEC" (he is ambiguous on this point), and he is an acknowledged
expert on evolutionist "literature":
"W.R. Bird is a summa cum laude graduate of Vanderbilt University and
the Yale Law school who argued the major case on origins before the
U.S. Supreme Court in 1981 (Aguillard et al. v. Edwards et al.,
civil action 81-4787, section H, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, Brief of the State in Opposition to ACLU Motion
for Summary Judgment; copyright 1984 by W. R Bird). In The Origin of
Species Revisited, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1993), he documents how evolutionary scientists are
increasingly questioning the validity of standard evolutionary theory.
The book draws on the research he carried out for the 1981 Supreme
Court case summarized in a 625-page brief that has more than two
thousand footnotes. Attorneys for the defendant gathered thousands of
pages of depositions from scores of evolutionary scientists, across
the spectrum of scientific disciplines. These scientists, along with
hundreds of others cited in his book, collectively expressed
reservations regarding most areas of evolutionary thinking."
(Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", Inter Varsity Press:
Illinois, 1994, p327).
DL>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).
I would appreciate more details of the above "sonic hedge hog"
and the "HOX D series (9-13)" gene.
But in any event, Bird's point was not that there are no
homologous genes, but they are not the general rule:
"First, the general absence of homologous (similar) genes for
homologous structures (i.e., the general presence of nonhomologous
genes) indicates unrelatedness rather than relatedness of different
natural groups of organisms. That was noted by Sir Gavin de Beer
former director of the British Museum of Natural History an(d
embryology professor at University College of London, in his book
entitled Homology, An Unsolved Problem...Indeed, the general rule is
nonhomologous genes for similar traits because of pleiotropy..."
(Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. I, Regency:
Nashville, 1991, p95).
De Beer's question was:
"...[W]hat 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, p95).
I would appreciate your posting of the answer to de Beer's question
from your reading of the "current professional literature".
SJ>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.
DL>You are more of an EC than a PC.
No. I believe that the origin of life and new designs were driven by
direct miraculaous supernatural divine intervention at strategic
points. If EC believes this, then it is PC! :-)
SJ>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.
DL>I disagree with regard to the "necessity" of God's manipulation of
>HOX genes, and very much agree with your HOX/"blind watchmaker"
>comment.
I am pleased that you agree with me about with the "blind watchmaker"
having difficulty with manipulating Hox genes. But I do not
understand that you a Christian who presumably believes that God will
raise up from the dust, every human being who has ever lived (Dan
12:2; John 11:24; Acts 24:15; Rev 20:13), have a problem with God
directly manipulating Hox genes!
SJ>The idea of evolution (an unfolding
>from within) is competely antithetical to the the idea of creation.
DL>Please explain this.
While you were absent from the Reflector I posted this:
"The fundamental contrast between the Hebrew-Christian doctrine of
creation and the Greek-modern doctrine of evolution is therefore
crystal-clear. The Genesis creation account depicts a personal
supernatural agent calling into existence graded levels of life by
transcendent power. The Greek-modern theory depicts a simple
primitive reality temporally differentiated by immanent activity into
increasingly complex entities that retain this capacity for future
development. In the evolutionary approach the principle of becoming
is metaphysically determinative. Time is not merely the actualizer of
new forms, but it originates them. Reality is intrinsically
developmental." (Henry C.F.H., "Science and Religion", in Henry
C.F.H., ed., "Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey", Baker:
Grand Rapids MI, 1968, p252)
>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.
SJ>Good! Then we are probably very close.
DL>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.
Good! This is the balance I want to achieve. As for "crypto-EC", I
would claim that it is EC that is a crypto-PC! :-)
SJ>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.
DL>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.
Please read what I say! :-) I specifically said that "the EC
position...correctly holds that God works through His natural laws".
Of course there is no dispute that in the normal operation of the
cosmos God works through His natural laws, including the development
of babies (I would not call this "creation" but forming - see Isa
44:2,24; 49:5; Jer 1:5 ).
The confusion in EC at this point appears to be between a clear
distinction between *origins* and *operations*, between creation and
providence.
You admit that "God can certainly do want He wants" but then pose the
"question": "Did He intervene by ways above the laws He set down and
maintains?". The answer from the Bible is unequivocally *YES*! From
Genesis to Revelation, God is depicted as an intervening God (eg.
Flood, Babel, Sodom, Exodus, Incarnation, Resurrection, calling of
Paul, Parousia), who can and does intervene in human history at
strategic points to inject the genuinely new into it.
I get back to my main point "...the EC position is only half Biblical
because it... incorrectly rules out God acting directly and
supernaturally complementary to those natural laws."
>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:
DL>Firstly, please appreciate that the evolutionists on the reflector
>like myself are not BLIND WATCHMAKER evolutionists. We are
>teleologists.
I am genuinely pleased that you reject "the blind watchmaker" and that
you claim to be "teleologists". But I do not understand why you
reject PC's clear-sighted, intervening Watchmaker! :-) As Dawkins
points out, once you reject his "blind watchmaker", you cannot rule
out a God creating progessively by "influencing key moments in
evolutionary history":
"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between
what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'.
Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in
instantaneous creation. The evidence for some sort of evolution has
become too overwhelming. But many theologians who call themselves
evolutionists...they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the
course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in
evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary
history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day
events that add up to evolutionary change....If we want to postulate a
deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the
world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must
already have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist,
whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop, simply postulates
an already existing being of prodigious intelligence and complexity.
If we are going to allow ourselves the luxury of postulating organized
complexity without offering an explanation, we might as well make a
job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we know it!"
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p316)
DL>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.
I am please that the blind watchmaker is falling out of favour because
of its difficulty in "accounting for the speed of macro-evolution".
But if "developmental evolutionary biology" denies the central role of
cumulative natural selection, then I would not call it "macro-
evolution". The complexity of the "HOX combinatorial code" may well
account for "the speed of macro-evolution", but then it will have the
problem of explaining how 100% natural forces can: a) produce the
"HOX combinatorial code" in the first place; and b) manipulate it to
obtain that "speed of macro-evolution".
[continued)
Happy Christmas
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------