>Once the proposition that "God has supernaturally intervened in some
>manner with respect to the appearance of the higher taxa", then these
>become sub-questions in a theistic science research program.
>May I suggest:
>a) "how God intervened..." He may have "intervened" in the same way
>that human investigators intervene in origin of life and genetic
>engineering experiments, namely by intelligent and purposeful
>manipulation of the environmental conditions and/or genome
Of course if God intervened in this manner, the magnitude of the
intervention would have been enormous and far and away exceeding man's
current intervention or ability to duplicate.
We can equally postulate that God's supernatural intervention was a
special creative act ex-nihilo. If, as I think you have proposed, the
preceding species were incapable of evolving into higher taxa without
supernatural intervention, it is certainly equally probable that a
special creative act can also produce the desired results. I felt that
your idea would need further work in this area with a convincing
argument that special creation could not have occurred and would be thus
precluded from consideration. The force of your argument would then rely
on the evidence itself among and not upon your opponent presenting a
weaker argument for an opposing view.
As I asked in my original post...
"2. When did He do this and why that point in time?"
>b) "...when God intervened..." at the *origin* of the basic design in
>question. Indeed, this may have been a series of steps.
I would agree that the intervention would be at the origin of the basic
design. This concept works for both TE and a special creation model.
Whether a series of steps was chosen by God is in question. What
evidence exists that convinvingly shows when the intervention occurred
(in history) and how does that work into the model that you have
proposed?
>c) ...why was it necessary to do so?". Because natural processes
>(even with God's immanent providential governance) are inadequate to
>achieve the vertical increment of information necessary to create
>new higher taxa:
One could deduce from this explanation that God designed "dead ends" to
the natural TE processes. This may be argued by non-TE's to be an
oxymoron of sorts.
> Scripture depicts God intervening in His providential
>governance of human history at strategic points. It seems to me
>entirely reasonable to assume He acted the same way in biological
>history.
> ReMine argues that this rules out a naturalistic explanation
>otherwise man would not be "without excuse" (Rom 1:20):
>I am arguing for "a fresh "de-novo" creative act". I just am not
>arguing for *whole organisms* to be created each time, because: a)
>that creates difficulties with appearance of age; and b) God made the
>genetic code with the capability of creation my addition and
>modification of that code.
These ideas can fit the creation model very easily... God's providence
would require "whole organisms" in numbers and "appearance of age" for
survival and reproductive purposes. (Examples: a juvenile/infant
organism may have a difficult time obtaining food and nourishment by
nursing on a mother without the "aged" mother being created and present,
"egg sitting" as seen in many prehistoric reptiles, or learned herd
behavior). In fact, this needs to be worked out further in your
argument in that a sudden "fresh, de-novo TE creative act" (what a
mouthful ;-) ) needs adult organisms to sustain the young in the higher
taxa that are suddenly on the scene, and reproduce in numbers that can
survive TE environmental and selective pressures. I'm sure that there
are numerous other examples.
Special creation would also support the concept of a genetic code that
utilizes "creation by addition", but not from the perspective of
building on previous sequences by evolution, but by using the whole
assortment as building blocks that can be combined and recombined to
define individual species. God does not need to manipulate an existing
organism's genetic code, he can just as easily supernaturally create a
new organism with these basic building blocks. The remaining question is
then "when" He did it for each selected species.
>>3. How does your idea contribute to a better understanding of
>>Romans 1:18 to 20?
>I claim it is at least equal with the de novo creation of whole
>organisms. The emphasis in Rom 1:18-20 is on on the finished
>products, ie. the *fact* of the "made-ness" of things, not on *how*
>they were made.
In a TE argument "made-ness" is a very fluid thing... i.e. always
changing by process. There are no finished products. So the argument is
on "how" (unless you are claiming that God manipulated the genetic code
to arrive at higher taxa and at that point their evolution ceased). If
you are in fact asserting that Romans 1:18-20 speaks to finished
products, then a very well reasoned argument can be made that a creation
model is affirmed by these verses and appears to carry more weight.
A. "Since the creation of the world"... God's attributes, power, and
nature "have been clearly seen" and "understood" through "that which has
been made." As I mentioned in my original post, the efficiency of a
creation argument fits this verse. God's created "finished products"
eliminates the need to understand a TE "how" before His attributes,
power, and nature are "clearly" seen. TE "madeness" requires a whole new
definition of that used in scripture... a product of workmanship
(poiema) and not processes.
B. These verses claim that this clearly seen knowledge of Him was made
evident by God so that they are without excuse "since the creation of
the world". Scriptural tradition for thousands of years upholds special
creation ex-nihilo as the essence of this knowledge. Is your model so
"clearly seen" or made so evident that it contributes to a convicting
knowledge of God's creative nature, power, and attributes? In addition,
it needs to forcefully argue for its being "clearly seen... since the
creation of the world". As previously mentioned, the simple, efficient,
model of creation has done this historically and conforms to this
scripture.
C. Since the evidence has been clearly seen since the creation of the
world, by man, the model that places man the closest to creation
conforms best with this scripture. Special creation of man at a point at
or very near to the world's point of creation easily accomplishes this.
How would this relate to your model?
>Thanks for the critique.
>God bless.
>Steve
God bless you also!
toward understanding....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Durham pdd@gcc.cc.md.us
Oakland, Maryland