Re: [asa] Timaeus- ID isn't "God of the gaps"

Welcome Michael!

I wish I had something more substantial to say right now - maybe I will
later. But I just wanted to say hello and mention I'm glad to see someone
with such a thoughtful first post.

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Michael McCray <momcmd3@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello. My name is Michael McCray. I am a retired physician with eclectic
> interests in science, philosophy, and religion. I adhere to a personal
> philosophy of pursuing, finding, and embracing truth where ever it may lead
> and whatever its consequences.
>
> I have only recently logged on to this conversation so I've missed the
> initial reason for this exchange. Can you enlighten me?
> I understand ID but what is "id"?
>
> I have noticed that there seems to be some confusion of terms.
> Evolution is defined as change over time. There is no stipulation within
> the definition as to whether this change is directed or not, nor is there a
> mention about whether the changes are progressive. Science, religion,
> civilization all change over time and are properly said to evolve.
> Typically when we speak of evolution in the biological sense we are
> referring to changes that happened before man came upon the scene, or
> changes over the whole course of biologic history that resulted in the
> appearance of man.
> Darwinian evolution is the "theory of evolution" proposed by Darwin in his
> "Origin of the Species." Darwin used the word evolution sparingly in that
> book. Because he was unaware of the large role hereditary plays in evolution
> he concluded that natural selection as the driving force of evolution.
> NeoDarwinian evolution as Gould might describe it in his "The Structure of
> Evolutionary Theory," takes into consideration the hereditary factors but
> still maintains natural selection is the driving force of evolution. Gould
> also maintains that evolution is undirected and non progressive. To his
> credit Gould stats that he and many other evolutionist obtained their
> advanced degrees from the department of physical sciences and not from the
> department of biological sciences. Implying that these evolutionists don't
> really know much about genetics. If Gould had only bothered to take one
> undergraduate course in genetics his book might have been worth reading. I
> read it all 2000 or so pages and Gould failed to identify the abrupt changes
> that can take place due to mutation and he totally failed to realize the
> impact of hybridization within clades. Others no doubt have seen these
> problems and corrected them but of these I am unaware.
>
> Any theory of evolution that claims that natural selection is the driving
> force of evolution puts the cart before the horse. Natural selection can
> only operate on individuals after hereditary and genetic factors have
> produced that individual. This misunderstanding has led many otherwise
> intelligent investigators to make definitely LeMarkian remarks explaining
> the evolutionary process. I will paraphrase Richard Leakey here:
> Environmental changes in Africa turned the forests into savanna. This change
> in environment promoted the development of bipedalism and the opposible
> thumb in the primates and the added danger of living on the savanna promoted
> the development of large brains and increased intelligence.
>
> Before I give you my explanation of evolution I would like to share with
> you some thoughts that are more general but have have specific significance
> to your overall discussion.
> What was true of our ancestors is true of our contemporaries. Mind will
> always construct a universal frame in which rational thought can take place.
> If mind cannot formulate conclusions or penetrate to primary causes then it
> will postulate conclusions and invent primary causes in order to form frames
> in which to think. Such frames are necessary but they are always erroneous
> in more or less degree. Such frames form the necessary scaffolding on which
> higher frames can be reached. And ever should man conceive of still higher
> frames in which thought is possible.
>
> To assume that the universe can be known, that it is intelligible, is to
> assume that the universe is mind made and personality managed. Man's mind
> can only perceive the mind phenomena of other minds, be they human or
> superhuman. If man's personality can experience the universe, there is a
> divine mind and actual personality somewhere concealed in that universe.
>
> Science deals with fact, philosophy with meaning, and religion with value.
> The clearest view of total reality is gained by that wise philosophy that
> combines the truths of both science and religion into a united whole.
>
> Always must we remember there are two perspectives man's and God's. The
> materialistic scientist may think of his origins as the insentient pond scum
> and a random and non progressive evolution to man. He may see man's nature
> as an intelligent animal driven by heredity, instinct and environment. He
> may even doubt that man possesses freewill. He sees his destiny despite all
> that he may be or do as personality loss in ignoble death. The kingdom
> believer on the other hand realizes that his origins are in the Father's own
> pronouncement: "Let us make man in our image." He realizes that his animal
> nature is augmented by the spiritual nature of the Father's spirit within
> him and the various spirit presences that surround him. He realizes he is a
> citizen of the universe a son of God. He knows he has freewill and choice
> about morals and ethics and whether he will follow God. And if he chooses to
> follow God, he knows he is destined to live eternally in the kingdom of
> heaven. And whatever he has learned here that has survival value will
> survive with him. Man the lowest of will creatures has the greatest
> potential for finite experience and having gained this experience in this
> life and in the ages to come man is destined to become a very valuable
> contributor to the destiny of of the Father's kingdom.
>
> Biological evolution is the change in individuals and hence populations
> caused by genetic factors operating on inheritable factors as they are
> impinged upon by natural selection. That is as good as I can do for a one
> sentence definition at this point. Inheritable factors are DNA and RNA as
> they are organized within a cell. Genetic factors include those transpiring
> in "normal" asexual and bisexual reproduction as well as those factor
> occurring in "abnormal" reproduction. I am speaking here of those changes to
> the inheritable factors brought about by mutation, transcription errors,
> translocation errors, etc. Genetic factors would also include divergent
> evolution within clades and the formation of hybrids. Natural selection
> includes environment, food supply, predators, etc.
>
> In the future when materialists scientists know every thing about the
> universe there will still be several gaps that they will not be able to
> explain or perform. They will not be able to create a universe. We know of
> the equivalence of mass and energy. And are able to create energy by this
> conversion but we will never be able to create energy without this
> conversion. Scientists are able to speed up small masses to near the speed
> of light and crash them together to create a composite mass greater than the
> sum of the two original masses but scientists will never be able to create
> an atom. Scientists will never be able to create life. These acts lie
> outside what man has been given to do, all of them require an act of deity.
>
> Michael McCray
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 7 05:41:59 2008