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

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Wed Mar 28 2007 - 14:57:38 EDT

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 16:03:25 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 28 2007 - 16:03:26 EDT