On Tue, 02 Jan 1996 15:43:09 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
[continued from part #1]
LH>WEAKNESSES OF EACH:
>-------------------
>
>(I should qualify this section. I do not think any of these "weaknesses"
>pose unanswerable problems for PC or TE. Each one is answerable.
>However, in all fairness, we should admit that they are GENERALLY
>PERCEIVED as "problem areas" by critics of PC/TE (respectively) --- and
>these "weaknesses" do occasionally cause late-night worries to advocates
>of PC/TE as well. :-)
>
>
> ++ Since PC neither predicts nor precludes any SPECIFIC miracles in
> biological history, PC requires additional hypotheses to explain the
> ACTUAL data. (For example, homologies in non-coding regions of DNA
> can be explained by proposing that God's miracles involved altering
> DNA in existing indivduals, rather than _de_novo_ creating new
> individuals.
No. IMHO "de_novo_ creating new individuals" is not a core hypothesis
of PC. The core hypothesis of PC is that God progressively created
new "kinds" (ie. higher taxa) over long periods of time. Whether this
was the "de_novo_ creating" of "new individuals" or "altering DNA
in existing indivduals", are *auxiliary* hypotheses.
IMHO the traditonal PC that postulates the "de_novo_ creating new
individuals" is IMHO neither essential, nor helpful, to PC. This is
really YEC with a long time frame. However, once the YEC requirement
for instantaneous creation is dispensed with, there is no Biblical
or logical reason to demand de novo progressive creation of whole new
organisms.
LH> The existence of several reptile/bird "hybrid" species
> before modern birds arose can be explained by proposing that God
> decided to introduce his new lifeforms gradually, over millions of
> years, with several intervening species, to allow the ecologies time
> to adapt.) These additions are not incompatible with PC, but neither
> are they are predicted by the framework of PC, and therefore have the
> "look and feel" of _ad_hoc_ additions.
This is only a problem to de novo PC. The Core hypothesis of PC is
that God progressively created new "kinds" (ie. higher taxa) over
long periods of time. He could arrive at these new "kinds" by
traversing a series of intermediate "hybrid" forms, eg. reptile/bird
Archaeopteryx-type transitional forms.
IMHO PC is helped enormously by the discovery of DNA and the genetic
code. Living forms are the outworking of variations to the genetic
program. A Master-Programmer could develop each new "program" from a
"library" of existing code, by adding or inserting new code.
LH> ++ When PC does make predictions at variance with macroevolution,
> they are almost invariably _negative_ predictions. (I.e.,
> "Scientists will never find a natural mechanism which could
> accomplish _______________.")
Indeed! If PC thinks it is right, then one would expect it to make
bold predictions negating rival theories. So far PC's track record is
pretty good. Carnell (1948) and Ramm (1955) predicted that large,
systematic gaps in the fossil record would not be closed. Thirty
years later, in the late 1970's, Gould finally admitted that the gaps
in the fossil record were real, and Neo-Darwinist gradualism was
falsified.
The dramatic shortening of time-frames available to Darwinist
macro-evolution (eg. <10 MY for the origin of life, <5 MY for the
origin of phyla in the Cambrian explosion), is an expectation, if not
a prediction, of PC.
TE AFAIK makes no predictions of its own. What the reigning theory of
naturalistic evolution predicts, TE goes along with. When the reigning
theory was classical Darwinism - TE was classical Darwinism, when it
was Neo-Darwinism - TE was neo-Darwinist, now it is Punctuated
Equilibria - TE is likewise, if it becomes Self-Organisational - so
will TE.
LH> ++ PC faces a dilemma when it is asked to specify which PARTICULAR
> elements of biological history must have been miraculous. If PC does
> not specify particular events, it appears somewhat vacuous. If PC
> _does_ specify particular events, it risks being discredited.
This is admittedly difficult. PC (like TE) must largely rely on
evidence discovered by secular scientists, many of them hostile to
theism. The track record is that scientists notice only what is
interesting to them, so evidence favouarble to PC may be slow to come
to light.
Also, in the nature of the case, supernatural explanations must await
the exhaustion of plausible naturalistic theories. This is common
sense - if at night walking down a road, we experience a rush of wind,
a blinding light and a horn-blast, we first think it is a car, not the
return of Christ! :-)
PC, like Naturalistic Evolution (NE) make retrodictions, to
reconstruct past events from present knowledge. PC (unlike TE) does
make some predictions, see above.
Finally, it must be realised that PC is not a first-order Christian
activity, like evangelism or worship. PC's may be in a minority
compared with YECs and TEs. However, the numbers of PC's may be on
the increase.
LH> ++ God could have provided unambiguous and easily accessible proof
> of his existence in the natural world; He apparently chose not to
> do so. If the laws of chemistry and biology really do preclude
> abiogensis and really do limit evolution to microevolution, this
> seems an obtuse place for the Creator to provide proof of his
> existence.
The Bible and experience indicates that the overwhelming majority (if
not all) humans are aware of God's "existence", through the witness
of His handiwork in creation (Ps 19; Rom 1).
Much of the problem (according to PC) is that in the 19th century
the majority of scientists seized on Darwin's theory of evolution
as an explanation of the origin and diversity of the living world,
without really subjecting it to normal sceptical scientific testing.
Scientists had no reason in either nature or Scripture to expect
abiogensis and evolution beyond microevolution. Any obtuseness here
is self-induced (2Th 2:11; Rom 1:22).
LH> == When confronted with serious scientific criticisms of
> abiogenesis and macroevolution (the pattern of stasis and
> rapid change in the fossil record, and the origins of higher
> taxa, complexity, and biological novelty), TE's --- like
> non-theistic evolutionists --- must resort to saying, "Hey,
> we THINK there are natural mechanisms, just give us a little
> more time to understand them." (This is never a very
> satisfying response.) And if abiogenesis or macroevolution is
> ultimately "disproved," so will be TE.
Yes. TE (having no scientific theory of its own), must attach itself
to the current naturalistic theory of evolution. If this is
discredited, so is TE. As evolution becomes less gradual and more
punctuational, and as YEC becomes discredited, so it is expected that
PC will gain adherents.
> == Since TE doesn't make any _scientific_ predictions different from
> deistic or non-theistic evolution, it must use (sometimes esoteric)
> philosophical and theological language to explain how TE is different
> from deism.
Indeed. At least one prominent TE on the Reflector have espoused
classical deistic mechnaistic views of God's relationship to the
universe. The world is a machine and God simply makes it, starts
it and lets it run.
IMHO TE is a philosophically unstable and inconsistent position. It
must hold to some direct divine intervention, else it resembles
(equals?) deistic evolution (DE), yet if it holds too much
intervention it resembles (equals?) PC.
Deistic evolution (DE) (no intervention) and YEC/PC (intervention in
origin of life and "kinds") are clear-cut, consistent philosophical
positions. TE is a half-way house having elements of DE and PC
Consistent TE tends to DE.
LH> == TE's find it difficult to confront Philosophical Naturalism in
> >a pithy way. TE's can, and do, argue that Naturalists'
> metaphysical conclusions are unwarrented from the scientific
> data, but such philosophical arguments don't have the visceral
> impact of the PC's claim that Naturalists' _scientific_
> conclusions are tainted.
Not only "visceral", but also intellectual. Witness debates between
YEC's (Gish) and PC's (Johnson), with real impact on naturalists.
Naturalists at least take YEC/PC seriously. They regard TE as
superfluous and simply ignore it.
LH> == TE's often find it difficult to express, to non-scientific
> laymen (both Christians and non-Christians), just "what it
> is God DOES" in their framework.
Yes. Just what is it God DOES in TE's framework, Loren? :-)
LH> == It always seems impious to argue AGAINST a miracle. (For
> example, Joan's cancer goes into remission. Joan believes
> this is a miracle. You know that ten percent of all cancers
> of Joan's type spontaneously go into remission, and that
> for women of Joan's age the number is actually 30%; in
> addition, several medical journal articles have recently
> been published suggesting possible mechanisms for these
> remissions. Should you argue with Joan?) Yet this is the
> situation in which TE finds itself.
This is not peculiar to TE. It is a real problem of Common Grace vs
Miracles. But remember that within that 30% there are *millions* of
individuals. Ther may be many miracles within that 30%. Individual
cases of miraculous healing are well documented, eg, Hudson-Taylor's
prayed-for recovery from then 100% fatal needle-stick with infected
blood (Taylor, Howard., "Hudson Taylor: In Early Years", CIM, 1911,
p164ff). If God miraculously heals on average (say) 5%, and 25% have
spontaneous remissions, the figure is still 30%! A recent post said
that HMO's were recognising a better than average health outcome for
those who were prayed for. Though this is a real issue, it is not a
PC/TE issue.
LH>--------------------------------------------
>
>(*1) The _specific_ scientific and theological reasons offered by PC's and
>TE's can, of course, be found on the WWW archives of this discussion
>group, and the in the books and articles written by contributers to this
>discussion group, and other books refered to in our discussion.
>
>(*2) The typical PC chronology of events does not exactly match the
>Genesis 1 chronology, nor does PC offer one-to-one correspondence with the
>"days" of Genesis; however, PC's _general_framework_ of a SEQUENCE OF
>MIRACULOUS ACTS is the same as the traditional Christian framework of
>understanding Genesis.)
What "typical PC chronology of events"? This may be in some Day-Age
theories, but this is not necessarily PC. I am a PC but I do not hold
to a "chronology of events". Some TE's may be Day-Agers?
LH>(*3) The Christian "tradition" I refer to --- the tradition of
>understanding "natural processes" such as gravity, nuclear forces,
>erosion, molecular biology, etc. as all being sovereignly ordained and
>sustained by God --- can technically only be as old as the scientific
>revolution itself; however, pre-scientific versions of it are found in the
>natural philosophy of several church fathers and theologians, and echos of
>it can be seen some Hebrew scriptures.
Indeed, this is a logical deduction from theism. Modern science
began in the Christian West as a direct consequence of the Christian
theistic view of a rational, predictable, orderly Law-giver God.
>---------------------------
>
LH>I hope this has been useful. Let me end this by repeating those
>definitions, and ask for input.
Thanks Loren for your hard work! Unfortunately I haven't got time
for an endless discussion on these points. We have beaten it to death
on more than one occasion. :-) I think you have not entirely fairly
represented PC (at least as I understand it), but you have been frank
about TE.
IMHO you are close to (if not actually at), a minimum PC position.
[...]
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------