NIIIIIIICHOLAS MATZKE wrote on 29th July:
"In reply to David's post:
I don't want to put words in your mouth (so correct me if I'm
wrong), but it sounds like you are telling me that if we consider
"only biological principles" (perhaps "only scientific evidence"
is implied?) you draw the conclusion that it is at least
physically POSSIBLE for modern day humans to have evolved from
earlier hominid species without REQUIRING direct supernatural
action."
Yes - although this is not he way I would phrase it! The thought
is that major speciation events might be expected within the
hominid family - based solely on biological principles.
NM: "If we both agree on this, then we move on to the next
question: whether or not direct supernatural action was involved
in the evolution of humans. This is a lot stickier, since
distinguishing between, say, a created human and an evolved
one is pretty hard from a few fossilized bones; even harder is
figuring out whether direct supernatural action or random action
is responsible for any particular mutation. I would be perfectly
happy if everyone agreed that the evolution of humans was
possible; beyond that, I think your belief in what DID happened
rests on your accepted philosophies, religion, worldview,
opinion, etc. In other words, this, perhaps, would be the
correct and comfortable position for faith to occupy."
The general approach I will defend is that no ancestral Basic
Type can be explained without involving supernatural activity.
The gulf between BTs is too large to be bridged by any known
natural process. But I agree that the underlying presuppositions
are vital here - whether we be naturalists, TEs, CEs, PCs or
YECs.
[ - snip - ]
NM: "OK, let me get this straight: you are asserting that the
Genesis references to "kind" "is non-technical and does not
relate to any biological classification term". Therefore, it has
no bearing on helping us decide if a particular species arose
naturally or supernaturally. Correct?"
Correct.
NM: "You appear to be saying that the Biblical evidence for the
existence of supernaturally created groups (baramin) rather than
naturally evolved groups lies elsewhere in the Bible, NOT in the
texts everyone has been arguing (good-naturedly discussing, I
like to think) over for weeks now. If you could show us some of
this other evidence, I'm sure we'd all be grateful."
The Bible says that God's creation is according to WISDOM. The
living world displays God's CRAFTSMANSHIP. The eye is made for
seeing and the ear for hearing - there is purposeful design to
be found in these basic sense organs. Picking up some of Paul
Durham's posts, I suggested that there is an analogy between
Christ's miracles and Christ being the Agent of creation. We are
expected to recognise the supernatural. I'll try to develop
these thoughts into a more extended post and indicate why they
suggest the TE and EC positions do not do justice to these
biblical principles.
[ - snip - ]
NM: "OK, I agree that "kind" is not a technical term. However,
you asserting that a technical "kind" (different from the Genesis
sense of the word), or "baramin" does exist, and corresponds to
the family."
Significant correction - "approximately the Family". Sometimes
sub-Family seems appropriate. These issues require research to
resolve.
NM: "Glenn, I believe, posted evidence that there are documented
cases of organisms interbreeding between families, as well as
evidence that animals grouped in the same families have greatly
differing chromosome numbers."
I've not seen any evidence of interbreeding between Families -
although I am not wanting to say this is impossible with our
present classification systems.
NM: "In any genetic comparison, humans are more closely related
to chimps than chimps are to other members of their family, so
chimps and humans should objectively share the same family (and
the same baramin, if your assertion is correct). None of this
evidence has been contradicted by anyone yet. We can logically
draw two conclusions from this:
1) The thesis "animals reproduce according to their baramins" is
wrong (in at least some cases) if baramin=family.
2) Humans and chimps are in the same baramin according to any
objective grouping. Thus, human and chimp evolution from a
common ancestor is possible naturally."
With regard to (1), I think that the identification of the
baramin is a matter of research, not to be decided by a dogmatic
statement.
With regard to (2), I think the present biological classification
is correct - chimps and humans are NOT in the same Family. Is
"objective" not to be determined solely by genetic comparison?
[ - snip - ]
NM: "I will shamefacedly admit that my characterization as "an
observational report of Middle Eastern nomads" was written as I
was getting all worked up over this issue, and thus comes out a
bit sarcastic, reductionist and anti-religious. I say the
reference to kinds is an observational report that is somewhat
inaccurate due to too small an observational period. It is
equally valid to say that the reference is in the "language of
appearance" - thus, organisms APPEAR to reproduce after their
kind (they appear to do so to Moses, or whoever authored
Genesis)."
Understood. I'm willing to go with this.
Thanks for the feedback,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***