Thanks WJ. Let’s take a look:
quote:
Creationists are frequently requested to propose a theory of creation, namely, why the particular life forms that exist were created. Again, this is not necessarily easy or possible to answer, but some fairly obvious observations can be made. [emphasis added]
I can’t wait.
quote:
The universe was created to reveal the love and mercy of God, and life forms were created to be a blessing to one another and to God.
What evidence can be used to adduce this? Sounds like a bald assertion. What could falsify this claim? Is there anything we see, whether from observation of modern organisms or from the fossil record that would show either the stated purpose of the universe or that organisms are a blessing to one another? What
is a blessing in this context? I may come back to this bit later.
quote:
Life forms were created in approximately their current state, recently and nearly simultaneously. But since the entrance of sin, degeneration and decay have appeared, and the law of love and cooperation has been to some extent replaced by the law of hatred and competition.
The definitions in this part are a bit vague. Please define approximately their current state and recently, as well as "...to some extent has been replaced...".
Here at least we have a potential falsification: the statement that all organisms were created simultaneously in their current state. For this to be true, there should be a fairly definitive division point between no living organisms and modern organisms. When this division occurs will be dependent on how the author is defining recently and the methodology he uses to date the beginning. Without that information, we’ll have to rely on modern geology and paleontology (I’ll avoid biology, since that science relies heavily on evolution. Comparing the two is not my intent. We should examine the evidence for the creationism theory without reference to its polar opposite.)
So what does the evidence show? In the first place, geology shows layers of rock stretching backwards in time. Logically, the older (I’m talking relative, not absolute age — the actual dates of deposition don’t matter for this discussion) layers were deposited first, with younger, more recent layers laid on top. If the theory is correct, we should find a point in these rock layers where modern organisms spring full blown, identifying the creation event. Even if these fossil organisms are somewhat different from what we can see out our windows today, we should at least see recognizable kinds appearing simultaneously (i.e, horse kind, dog kind, cattle kind, frog kind, teleost (bony) fish kind etc).
Is this what fossils show? No. There is a continuous presence of life from nearly the very lowest layers to the most recent. Worse, there is a distinct stratification of organisms: dinosaur kinds never appear in the same layer or even above horse or giant ground sloth kinds. Trilobite kinds never appear above or in the same layer as cat kinds. Humans never appear below or in the same layer with nautiloid kinds. This sorting is inconsistent with a simultaneous creation of more-or-less modern organisms. So much for "fairly obvious observations".
quote:
We can assume that organisms were originally created to be best adapted to fulfil their place in existence, which does not mean that they were created to be reproducing machines or fitness machines.
This is a fairly broad assumption. What is meant by their place in existence? What would be the potential falsification for this statement? One possibility would be if examples of modern organisms could be found that were not best adapted to their environment (on the assumption that this is what is meant by place in existence.) However, the theory specifies originally created, and later the author talks about God creating the methods for creatures to adapt after the invention of death (I assume this is the adamic curse?). Therefore this potential falsification is invalid. What positive evidence can be used to adduce the validity of this claim? Since there are no eyewitnesses to the moment of creation, nor any evidence of perfect organisms in the fossil record, there is no confirming evidence for the claim (or against it, for that matter). If there is neither confirming evidence, nor potential falsification, then the claim is invulnerable and hence scientifically null. Any other possibilities?
quote:
As for why the particular organisms were created that were created, the principle of unity and variety, theme and variations, seems to be present. Many body plans are illustrated and many ecological niches are filled. We have soft animals, animals with shells, animals with bones on the inside, moving animals, stationary animals, air animals, animals in the trees, animals on land, animals in the soil, animals in the sea, animals of various sizes, and so on. It is even possible that the Lord did not create all the animals from scratch, but may have taken parts of one animal to create the next one.
As for why the Lord used the same design for different purposes at times, and different designs for the same purpose, we can assume that the same design is sometimes suited for more than one purpose, and that for different organisms, different designs may be better adapted for a given purpose.
Is this the creationist theoretical explanation for biodiversity? I’m not sure what’s the explanatory power of this section. Perhaps one of our creationists can explain it better.
quote:
We can also recall that there has been limited evolution and degeneration since the creation, influencing the life forms existing at present.
The author does not define what is meant by limited evolution or degeneration. Perhaps if the author defines these terms, we can examine what evidence might be available to see if the theory is valid.
quote:
The Lord even created the marvelous hereditary machinery found in organisms today, by which life can adapt to changing conditions. It is a marvel of Divine wisdom that the entrance of death, not originally part of God's plan, could be used by Him in this way to enable life to adapt to the conditions of a fallen world.
Eliminating the references to God and original sin leaves hereditary machinery [ahem] found in organisms today by which life can adapt to changing conditions — the foundation of evolution by natural selection. This seems to be both circular and a contradiction of the opening premise: that all organisms were created spontaneously perfectly fit for their environment. IOW, there is no explanation here of why such a mechanism was required. The need for an adaptational ability was not apparent until AFTER the fall (which was not originally part of God’s plan, eliminating the omniscience answer), therefore there was no need for a perfectly fit organism to have this capability. Since there has been nothing more than limited evolution and degeneration since the fall, there is no requirement even now, if I am understanding this correctly, for such a capability.
WJ: I’m sorry, without some substantial revision, this theory boils down to goddidit, which while perhaps fine for a True Believer , takes it well out of the realm of science. A theory it is, but not a scientific one. As it stands, the theory has almost no explanatory power.
I guess we're still waiting...
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-30-2002]
™ Version 4.2
