Doug Hayworth wrote:
> Bryan Cross wrote:
> >Common ancestry does not prove continuity of natural causes. Therefore,
> >common ancestry per se reveals nothing about the creative capacity of nature.
>
> Are you serious?! If the burden of proof necessary to meaningfully proceed
> is that great, then what hope can the intelligent design folks have for
> proving their hypotheses? Christians will drag their feet to the bitter
> end, I guess.
>
> Doug
I didn't realize my claim would seem surprising, but its just logic, not
foot-dragging (at least on my part!). If either X or Y could produce Z, then Z
does not entail X, nor does Z entail Y. Additional evidence (besides Z) is
required to decide between X and Y. At present, for reasons I provided in my
previous post, evidence for complete continuity of natural causes has not been
provided. Indeed there may be some evidence to the contrary (i.e. irreducible
complexity). If it is sin to presume that there are gaps, why is it not a sin to
presume there are no gaps. The sin (if we were to call it that) is not in the
object of the presumption, but in the presumption itself.
David C. writes:
>That would be a valid point, if he did not go beyond it. However, two
>invalid points are added. First is making the claim that nature definitely
>did not do it on its own. Although the picture is by no means complete,
>the gaps have consistently narrowed, so that macroevolution sensu Johnson,
>etc. is plausible. The purported gaps in common ancestry invoked by
>Johnson, etc. tend not to reflect paleontological reality.
Until we have a smooth and continuous genetic trajectory without viability gaps,
then "plausible" just means "I can imagine it". But conceivability is not a good
guide to possibility, especially when we have barely scratched the surface of what
it is that needs to be conceived. Moreover, the problems of generating irreducible
complexity (IC) and specified complex information (SPI) have not been solved.
These are some of the reasons Johnson makes the positive claim. Of course we may
discover natural explanations for the generation of IC and SPI, but in the mean
time, these features lend some support to Johnson's claim.
>The more serious error is identifying macroevolution sensu Johnson as
>disproof of God. A Christian viewpoint requires that nature achieving
>things on its own is actually God using means to achieve his purposes
>rather than true independance. Being omniscient and omnipotent, He could
>create things any way He liked. It is this theological error that is most
>disturbing about his claims and their widespread warm reception.
Concerning theology, if denying omniscience and omnipotence is heresy, then so is
embracing deism. Clearly there are legitimate theological concerns on both sides
of the table. Claiming that God acted where He didn't, or denying that God acted
where He did are both errors. I agree with your point; macroevolution is not
disproof of God. However, the statement "nature achieving things on her own is
actually God using means to achieve his purposes" is a contradiction. Either
nature is not achieving things on her own, or she is achieving things on her own.
If the former, then God is doing it, not nature. If the latter, then nature is
doing it, not God. If God and nature are both involved, then they must have
different roles. They can't both be doing the same thing in the same sense, for
that would entail that they were the same thing, and that too is a heresy to be
avoided (pantheism). To say that God does everything (and that therefore nature
has no causal role) is (in my view) to deny the doctrine of creation. Theological
pitfalls indeed abound.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 18:55:09 EDT