Re: [asa] How big a deal is homology?

From: David Opderbeck <>
Date: Wed Mar 28 2007 - 15:18:14 EDT

*You can distinguish between [TE and progressive creation] by seeing whether
the species are genetically related.*

No you can't -- you have to explain *why* they're "genetically related."
For example, a man-made clone -- say, an *e coli* strain that has been
genetically engineered to express enzymes that digest industrial waste -- is
both "specially created" and "genetically related" to ordinary *e coli *(the
"creator" can even get a patent on it!).

Maybe we're not using the same terms. I don't use "progressive creation" to
mean "no genetic relationship between kinds." As I understand the "God
could re-use common genetic code and body plans" meme Jim alluded to a while
back, within some sorts of OEC / progressive creation views, there can be a
very real "genetic relationship" across "kinds," but that relationship
reflects God's cloning work as it were. They would say that "common
descent" reflects not "macroevolution," but rather reflects God's
progressive use and re-use of genes and body plans as new "kinds" are
created. (This is what I understand Hugh Ross / Fuz Rana's view to be).

On 3/28/07, Rich Blinne <> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, David Opderbeck <> wrote:
> >
> > *On the other hand, TE and progressive creation is distinguishable via
> > science. This means that the issue between the two is a scientific rather
> > than a theological question.*
> >
> > But is it really? Science assumes evolution must have proceeded for the
> > most part through the gradual accretion of changes, and not through any
> > tinkering by God, *because God is methodologically excluded from Science
> > *. Science therefore can't distinguish between TE and progressive
> > creation, unless "distinguish" means "assume there is no God...." (or
> > unless "progressive creation" means radical discontinuity between "kinds" --
> > not something more sophisticated ID / progressive creationists would
> > necessarily hold).
> >
> You can distinguish between them by seeing whether the species are
> genetically related. Here I am focusing on common descent rather than
> natural selection. The latter may turn into a theological issue. Still if it
> is conceded that species are still genetically related, the alternative is
> God is actively breeding life rather than through some other method of
> natural selection. Given these first and second causes cannot be
> distinguished it's just as easy to call it natural selection and be done
> with it. Even so, the sophisticated ID folk you allude to I see as more of a
> variant of TE than progressive creationists anyway.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 28 15:18:49 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 28 2007 - 15:18:50 EDT