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

Hi Michael,

Very nice to see you step in, and with both feet. J You'll find that I'm
much the lay person around here, but I thought I'd offer my 2 cents. [I used
these pennies earlier but they were given back to me.]

I understand ID but what is "id"?

I understand "id" to mean that an intelligent designer (God) is responsible
for our universe, which is significantly different, of course, than the more
specific ID.

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.

How true. I did a word search in one of the on-line editions of his Origins
and "evolution" was never found.

Because he was unaware of the large role hereditary plays in evolution he
concluded that natural selection as the driving force of evolution.

I am unclear why such unawareness would have hindered his view of natural
selection. The issue of the mechanism behind natural selection did create a
problem after his original publication, and he eventually offered an ad-hoc
model, but I suspect he simply ignored it originally much as Newton ignored
the question as to what gravity was, though his defining equations were very
powerful.

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.

Yes, but natural selection did not come with a mechanism to explain how
acquired traits for offspring did not, for instance, become blended with the
two parents. Natural selection explains why some varieties advanced and
others do not. Natural selection may be a cart, but it seems to have a
steady horse ahead of it.

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.

Nicely stated. Fortunately, some of these mental constructs are testable if
they are in the realm of science. Testability is a requirement for
scientific theory.

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.

That which is evidentiary is independent of the subjective views of
scientists, though such views can be impediments to the fact-finding
process. Nucleosynthesis strongly suggests we can consider our material
make-up as either nuclear waste or star dust, but a "rose by any other name
is.". I know some sense great beauty in an intelligent creation of almost
unlimited diversity of physical life across a universe so vast.

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.

Nice.

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.

Atoms can be created but not ex nihilo.

Enjoyable first post, Michael.

Coope

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Michael McCray
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 4:25 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Timaeus- ID isn't "God of the gaps"

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 11:23:42 2008