On 8 Jul 1996 21:56:12 EDT, pdd@gcc.cc.md.us wrote:
>SJ>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
PD>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.
Agreed. Dawkins wonders if we will ever have the ability to do it:
"There is another mathematical space filled, not with nine-gened
biomorphs but with flesh and blood animals made of billions of cells,
each containing tens of thousands of genes. This is not biomorph
space but real genetic space. The actual animals that have ever
lived on Earth are a tiny subset of the theoretical animals that
could exist. These real animals are the products of a very small
number of evolutionary trajectories through genetic space. The vast
majority of theoretical trajectories through animal space give rise
to impossible monsters. Real animals are dotted around here and
there among the hypothetical monsters, each perched in its own unique
place in genetic hyperspace. Each real animal is surrounded by a
little cluster of neighbours, most of whom have never existed, but a
few of whom are its ancestors, its descendants and its cousins.
Sitting somewhere in this huge mathematical space are humans and
hyenas, amoebas and aardvarks, flatworms and squids, dodos and
dinosaurs. In theory, if we were skilled enough at genetic
engineering, we could move from any point in animal space to any
other point. From any starting point we could move through the maze
in such a way as to recreate the dodo, the tyrannosaur and
trilobites. If only we knew which genes to tinker with, which bits
of chromosome to duplicate, invert or delete. I doubt if we shall
ever know enough to do it, but these dear dead creatures are lurking
there forever in their private comers of that huge genetic
hypervolume, waiting to be found if we but had the knowledge to
navigate the right course through the maze." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p73)
PD>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.
It is not only "equally probable", but it is *absolutely certain*
"that a special creative act can also produce the desired results".
Obviously God can create whole species full-blown without
ancestors if He wanted to. But I don't argue this because it seems
inconsistent with both the Biblical and scientific evidence.
PD>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.
I am not really interested in debating against "special creation" and
in particular to prove the universal negative that it "could not have
occurred". My focus of debate is against "evolution", both
naturalistic and theistic.
PD>As I asked in my original post...
SJ>"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.
PD>I would agree that the intervention would be at the origin of the
>basic design.
This may not be as simple as it seems. A "basic design" at the
phenotype level may involve a *series* of gene mutations and/or
chromosome translocations.
PD>This concept works for both TE and a special creation
>model.
Agreed about "special creation" but AFAIK "TE" has no original theory
of "basic design" unique to itself - it believes in the same random
mutation + natural selection mechanism as Naturalistic Evolution,
with no intervention by God.
PD>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?
The sudden first appearance of any new "basic design", eg. as
described by Gould in his famous "New and General Theory" paper,
under the heading "The saltational initiation of major transitions":
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution....I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new
designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features-a
fantasy that would be totally anti-Darwinian in denying any
creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating
old models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for
the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine
that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one
step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would
scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more
must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design-the building
of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the
least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new
regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to
other, coordinated modifications." (Gould S.J., "Is a new and
general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1),
January 1980, p127)
Gould had to abandon his modified fast-transition theory (even though
the evidence supports it) because there is no 100% naturalistic way
it could happen. But an omniscient, omnipotent Intelligent Designer
could do it.
As to "convincingly" - I would ask "convincingly" to who? It makes
sense to me, but I doubt if I am going to win a Nobel Prize! :-)
SJ>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:
PD>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.
If there weren't such "dead ends" then there would have been no need
for Gould to propose his "New and General Theory"! In an earlier
paper he wrote that smooth intermediates between basic body plans are
almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments:
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though
it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists.
Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to
construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no
evidence for them in the fossil record..." (Gould S.J. & Eldredge
N., "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution
reconsidered", Paleobiology, 1977, vol. 3, p147)
SJ>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.
PD>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.
I am not arguing *against* the creation of "whole organisms", I am
just not arguing for it. :-) In the case of Archaeopteryx, we have a
reptile with feathers. The difference between feathers and scales is
whether an embryo's dermal matrix is evaginated or invagination:
"Oster and Alberch apply this concept to embryological development.
Using skin structures as their model, they point out how evagination
and invagination of the dermal matrix results in either scales and
feathers or glands and hair respectively." (Lester L.P. & Bohlin
R.G., "The Natural Limits to Biological Change", Word Publishing:
Dallas TX, Second Edition, 1989, p129).
However, these macro-mutational proposals are rejected because they
represent a type of genetic miracle:
"People called saltationists believe that macromutations are a means
by which major jumps in evolution could take place in a single
gcncration. Richard Goldschmidt...was a true saltationist. If
saltationism were true, apparent 'gaps' in the fossil record needn't
be gaps at all....There are very good reasons for rejecting all such
saltationist theories of evolution. One rather boring reason is that
if a new species really did arise in a single mutational step,
members of the new species might have a hard time finding mates."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p231)
Even if a reptile with feathers was hatched out of a reptile's egg,
what would be required is at least *two* such miracles (in fact a
male and a female), plus a protected environment where they could
mate and reproduce without being re-absorbed into their former
reptile species population. In addition, they would have to be
reptiles who would benefit from feathers (eg. a small, light-boned
dinosaur like Compsognathus) - it would not be much use for a
Brontosaurus to develop feathers! :-) Then further genetic miracles
(eg. an avaian lung, an avian heart, an avian circulatory system)
would have to happen *to their descendants*, *in the right order*.
An Intelligent Designer could arrange all this, but not a Blind (ie.
unsconscious) Watchmaker.
PD>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.
I said nothing about "previous sequences by evolution". I am
proposing *progressive creation* not "evolution.
Of course God could create whole organisms from "building blocks".
But the fossil record shows new designs emerging from old designs
(eg. Archaeopteryx was a reptile with feathers, and Acanthostega was
a fish with feet). And as Terry Gray points out, all primates have
the inability to make vitamin C and this is due to a gene that no
longer functions properly. This seems to better fit a model of
"creation by addition", ie. building on what has gone before, than
whole new re-assembly of from "building blocks".
PD>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.
See above. The question is not what God "needs" to do (He doesn't
"need" to do anything - Acts 17:25), or what He can "easily" do
(there is nothing hard for God - Jer 32:17), but what He *did* do.
PD>3. How does your idea contribute to a better understanding of
>Romans 1:18 to 20?
SJ>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.
PD>In a TE argument "made-ness" is a very fluid thing... i.e. always
>changing by process. There are no finished products.
I am not aware that this is a "TE argument". Even some naturalists
would concede that evolution has largely stopped.
PD>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).
I don't claim that it was "evolution" in the first place! :-) The
word "evolution" is so vague that I prefer not to use it, unless it
is clearly defined.
PD>/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.
Romans 1:20 speaks of "the things that are made" which is
primarily claiming that they *manufactured* products. It is not
clear that this necessarily implies "*finished* products". But
in any event, the "creation model" includes mediate or progressive
creation.
PD>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.
OK. I will leave it to "TE"s to answer for their position.
PD>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.
Even Genesis 1 only teaches "creation ex-nihilo" for the original
creation of the heavens and the earth. As far back as Augustine this
has been recognised:
"...Augustine...taught original ex nihilo creation, and subsequent
formation, or creation and formation (formatio). In his system we
have: (i) Creation ex nihilo exhibited in the creation of the matter
of the world, and in miracles of divine grace; (ii) and creation as
formation or administration in which the matter of creation ex nihilo
has form imposed upon it. In the second type of creation we have
matter impregnated with the rationes seminales and subject to
immanent lack of causation or secondary laws of causation and thereby
in process over a period of time realizing the preordained forms in
Nature. The first type of creation is creation potential; the second
is creation actual. " (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and
Scripture", Paternoster: London, 1955, p77).
PD>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?
My mediate progressive creation model makes no difference to this.
Rom 1:20 is talking about things seen *here and now* which impress
themselves on all men as having been made. Whether they were made
instantaneously, in 6 x 24 hours or over millions of years makes no
difference to their looking like they have been designed and made.
Even the atheistic evolutionist Dawkins concedes this:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p1)
PD>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.
See above. There is no essential difference between PC and YEC on
this point. As I have said before, I am not really interested in
debating PC vs YEC. If you want to address your "simple, efficient,
model of creation" to *the facts of science* (as I am doing with PC),
then I am sure TEs like Glenn will be happy to accommodate you! :-)
PD>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?
See above. There is no doubt that "Special creation" "conforms...
with this scripture", just as does the Progressive Creation model.
But we must agree to differ on whether it "conforms best". Rom 1:20
obviously is not claiming that mankind was present at "the creation
of the world", so any argument based on the relative length of the
time interval between the "creation of the world" and the creation of
man seems contrived. :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------