Keith B Miller wrote:
> Some responses to Bert Massie --
> >Not really. If I were to argue for "progressive creation" I could also
> >argue that I don't know that much about exactly how or when or what just
> >that the physical record indicates that at certain junctures there was
> >creation and that it is not known about other junctures.
> Which "certain juctures."? Without specifics, there is no basis for discussion.
I am NOT arguing for "progessive creation."(pc) I am asking Howard to provide me
with something specific to support his views of one creation fully embodied for
But, if I DID want to argue for "progressive creation", then I would need to point
to instances where the evidence strongly points to the inability of"evolutionary"
mechanisms to accomplish the development. This is the agenda of "design" theory
where "irriducible complexity" (IC)
is put forth as just this. The IC folks see IC all about so I would suppose that
they feel that pc is prevelant action.
> >> One of my points is that once you open the category of "supernatural
> >> form-imposing intervention," there is no limit whatsoever in what you
> >> could propose. Model B is not a specific testable theory, but a way to
> >> keep the door open to irruptive interventionism indefinitely. No
> >> matter how many specific, testable B-type proposals might be defeated,
> >> another one could be proposed.
> >Yes this is true and as such is not a reason to disbelieve in
> >"progressive creation."
> But then it must also be admitted that the position is held independent of
> scientific evidence.
> >Inadequate sounds prejoritive suggesting that somehow God failed the.
> >first time. One could just as easily read this as
> >"Some Christians see evidence that God intervened in the natural progess
> >of the development of the universe to assure that certain anti-probable
> >events occurred. One such example is the origin of plant life on the
> >earth which was key to causing changes in the earths early atmosphere."
> Again, the specifics is where such a position falls apart. What is the
> specific evidence that "God intervened in the natural process of the
> development of the universe..."? If you cannot provide such rigorous
> evidence then the claim falls flat.
> What do you mean by the origin of plant life? Photosynthesis appeared with
> the cyanobacteria as much as 3.5 billion years ago. The eucaryotes
> ******appear to***********
> have evolved by the incorporation of symbiotic bacteria. This
> tothe origin of chloroplasts in eucaryotic cells. Multicellular algae then
> appear in the late Precambrian with nearly all major algae groups appearing
> before the first metazoans. The first vascular plants were were simple
> rootless and leafless axes with sporangia in the late Ordovician and
> Silurian. Subsequently scale-like structures developed on the axes
> increasing surface area. I could continue on through the
> of terrestrial plants. Seed-bearing plants don't appear until the
> Pennsylvanian, and flower and fruit-bearing plants don't appear until the
> Cretaceous. Again when in this chain is the evidence for God's
> intervention? If you pick one place -- why there and not somewhere else?
"Seems" and "appear to" are proposals. Your statement is really a description not a
Then, you insert your conclusion "evolution." I believe that you may have the
of events correct but no evidence that evolution has the power to make this happen.
> When oxygen was first produced by phtotosynthesis is encountered a huge
> oxygen sink in the form of dissolved reduced iron in the oceans. That
> oxygen sink had to be filled before Oxygen was free to accumulate in the
> atmosphere. Then there was the matter of oxidizing terrestrial sediments.
> It wasn't until the late Precambrian that oxygen levels began to accumulate
> to an extent sufficient to support life in coastal and terrestrial
> environments. During the subsequent history of the Earth, vegetation and
> the storage of organic carbon continued to have important effects on
> Earth's atmospheric composition and climate.
> >Howard, further, one could see the laws of physics as given once and
> >forever as part of the original creation (along with the big bang.) and
> >we could call these "its natural capabilities." Its not about natural
> >capabilities it is about inserting information and assemblies such as
> >At certain points God intervened to make things from his raw material
> >such as biological cells for example.
> Again, at precisely which points? On what basis are those points chosen?
Design theorists would point to many points, everywhere they see irriducible
see information being inserted.
> Keith B. Miller
> Department of Geology
> Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 21:56:37 EDT