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

Hello Michael. Glad to see you've joined the conversation. A quick word of advice.

Most of the assertions in your post are either incorrect or are the expressions of personal opinions and biases. I believe you would be wise to read more of the list before posting any more, and I suggest you read more carefully on the history and current status of evolutionary biology.

Steve Matheson

>>> "Michael McCray" <momcmd3@gmail.com> 11/07/08 5:25 AM >>>

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 10:50:11 2008