And the Biblical Flood is quite easily dismissed for a number of other reasons anyway?
But 'progressive creation' needs to make sense even as an hypothesis and it's not at all easy to explain why a creator endowed with near limitless power wouldn't simply finish the project in an instant, instead of hesitating over the design for many hundreds of millions of years.
Noah's flood is definitely presented in poetic form in the Bible in a way that incorporates obvious hyperbolic exaggeration to make theological points. An underlying historical flood event (local or regional) presented in hyperbolic global extent in Genesis can't be ruled out. (There is certainly plenty of geological evidence for Mega-Flood events that washed over huge regional areas like the Channeled Scablands, or possible catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea and the entire Mediterranean, so again, a real historical event underlying the biblical flood can't be ruled out and I think there was a real event. At present though no definitive assignments can be made)
Possible theological explanations for progressive creation exist, including divine provision (or simply creativity) that are interesting but ultimately speculative. The number of fortuitous 'just right' happenstance occurrences on our habitable earth are also interesting to ponder. For example, the fortuitous decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide over billions of years (largely the result of photosynthesis and CO2 sequestration in Paleozoic carbonates) in lock-step balance with the Sun's increasing luminosity to maintain habitability--that is either a very lucky happenstance relationship of two variables that have NO obvious relationship to each other that just so happened to balance each other out over billions of years or it's very suggestive of design.
(On a side note, technically an evolutionary view does not rule out the divine and notable groups of professional scientists like Francis Collins' Biologos think-tank identify with an 'evolutionary creation' viewpoint).
Putting that aside and going by how things look at face value it is true that there are parts of the fossil record--the abrupt and sudden appearance of which, of fully formed paleocommunities with ecological associations and provincialism already evident and intact seemingly out of nowhere--it could be argued that such instances 'look' as if they were sudden creations.
Darwin noted some of these events such as the Cambrian 'explosion' and the angiosperm 'explosion' of flowering plants in the Cretaceous which Darwin called an 'abominable mystery'.
While additional research has certainly helped fill in the gaps there are aspects of these and other similar events which remain problematic and for which we still lack adequate, satisfactory solutions from a purely naturalistic, materialist position.
The difficulty on the non-materialist side, apart from the fact modern science rejects such explanations as a matter of course, is obvious lack of criteria for rigorously establishing a 'sudden creation', which methodologically seems impossible. That said, there are still real problems that exist for the die hard materialist, and it's probably fair to note these problems are all too often ignored, minimized or swept under the rug. (For example, I find the species/generic disparity of the Cambrian explosion problematic. It is not just the fact that virtually all animal body plans appear rather abruptly, or the scale of the event (which has never been repeated), or the truly explosive worldwide increase in biomass; but also the inverted 'evolutionary tree' we seem to have where it goes beyond missing links. Even with an incomplete record we would expect better documentation of cladogenic/speciation events. Some animal phyla body plans, however, are only represented by a few species. That is, these major differences in body plans appear with few species/genera representatives, and then subsequently diversify within phyla groups to increase species/generic diversity after the fact and backwards from what we would expect evolutionarily even with a punctuated equilibrium view).
***In the words of a former professor: 'there's good news and bad news for everyone in the fossil record.'
"There is certainly plenty of geological evidence for Mega-Flood events that washed over huge regional areas like the Channeled Scablands, or possible catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea and the entire Mediterranean, so again, a real historical event underlying the biblical flood can't be ruled out and I think there was a real event"
A form of human cultural memory via oral tradition perhaps? That's feasible but only for events that were actually witnessed by humans with sufficient vocabulary (or non-verbal descriptive power) to pass such knowledge on through the generations.
That would certainly rule out the flooding of the Mediterranean because I remember it being said in a documentary I watched that it was some two million years ago but the Black Sea flooding could be within human memory. However, these weren't rapid events and both people and animals would have been able to relocate, so the Biblical extermination of all people other than Noah and his family and all beasts, doesn't make any sense.
And of course there have been inundations of the land well within human history such as the tsunami that swept across the entire Mediterranean and is credited with having decimated the ancient Minoan civilisation of Crete. That would have killed a large number of people and animals. But ancient people would probably have been able to distinguish between a flood caused supposedly by heavy rain and one arriving as a vast wave.
The explanation I favour is the geological one - in various parts of the world it's possible to see the fossilised shells of sea creatures embedded in sedimentary rocks at some altitude above sea level. What would people in the Bronze Age had made of that discovery? Surely, that at some time in the past the sea must have covered all the land even up to the peaks of the mountains.
It's not unreasonable that they would have woven stories around that, one of which eventually came to be recorded in the form we have now.
"Darwin noted some of these events such as the Cambrian 'explosion' and the angiosperm 'explosion' of flowering plants in the Cretaceous which Darwin called an 'abominable mystery'"
The Cambrian 'explosion' is one of the favourite whipping boys of the YEC! But when I looked into it, I found it took about 20 million years and that's considered to be more than enough time for evolution of the type seen to occur.
It's worth reflecting that the great majority of species we find on the planet today, especially mammalian ones, would be extremely unlikely to have emerged had not a huge asteroid struck the Mexican coast some 65 million years ago. If the dinosaurs had endured it's very probable that the fauna of the Earth would look completely different.
To me this strongly indicates purely chance events shaped our planet and the life on it.
"There is certainly plenty of geological evidence for Mega-Flood events that washed over huge regional areas like the Channeled Scablands, or possible catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea and the entire Mediterranean, so again, a real historical event underlying the biblical flood can't be ruled out and I think there was a real event"
A form of human cultural memory via oral tradition perhaps? That's feasible but only for events that were actually witnessed by humans with sufficient vocabulary (or non-verbal descriptive power) to pass such knowledge on through the generations.
That would certainly rule out the flooding of the Mediterranean because I remember it being said in a documentary I watched that it was some two million years ago but the Black Sea flooding could be within human memory. However, these weren't rapid events and both people and animals would have been able to relocate, so the Biblical extermination of all people other than Noah and his family and all beasts, doesn't make any sense.
And of course there have been inundations of the land well within human history such as the tsunami that swept across the entire Mediterranean and is credited with having decimated the ancient Minoan civilisation of Crete. That would have killed a large number of people and animals. But ancient people would probably have been able to distinguish between a flood caused supposedly by heavy rain and one arriving as a vast wave.
The explanation I favour is the geological one - in various parts of the world it's possible to see the fossilised shells of sea creatures embedded in sedimentary rocks at some altitude above sea level. What would people in the Bronze Age had made of that discovery? Surely, that at some time in the past the sea must have covered all the land even up to the peaks of the mountains.
It's not unreasonable that they would have woven stories around that, one of which eventually came to be recorded in the form we have now.
If I were to pick I'd consider the Black Sea flooding, though again there can be no certainty on the matter. There is also disagreement on whether the infilling was gradual or catastrophic. A local flood of smaller proportions can't be ruled out either as the underlying historical event that the Bible presents in figurative, hyperbolic/exaggerated poetic form as global in extent and destruction. This account isn't meant to 'make sense' (anymore than a poem is meant to communicate scientific information). It is meant to 'make a point' via poetic, purposeful hyperbolic retelling.
"Darwin noted some of these events such as the Cambrian 'explosion' and the angiosperm 'explosion' of flowering plants in the Cretaceous which Darwin called an 'abominable mystery'"
The Cambrian 'explosion' is one of the favourite whipping boys of the YEC! But when I looked into it, I found it took about 20 million years and that's considered to be more than enough time for evolution of the type seen to occur.
The devil's in the details. As I said, there are real problems like the 'inverted tree' that are too easily dismisses or swept under the rug. Whether we had 5 million or 20 million, we're still missing not simply a few intermediate forms but the origins of phyla themselves and are also missing gradual changes in entire sets of communities. Virtually all major animal phyla body plans just 'appear'--like trilobites!!--with no indication at all where they came from and what type of earlier form preceeded it. It's not just missing the B between A and C. We're often missing the A! The sheer explosion of biomass worldwide is also phenomenal and unprecedented. You go out to the fossil record and see nothing or a few things before and then suddenly 'boom!' Entire communities with mass quantities of life suddenly appear out of nowhere.
...You go out to the fossil record and see nothing or a few things before and then suddenly 'boom!' Entire communities with mass quantities of life suddenly appear out of nowhere.
But is this regarded as being a huge problem by evolutionary Biologists, or more a set of questions that are likely to be answered in time?
It's worth reflecting that the great majority of species we find on the planet today, especially mammalian ones, would be extremely unlikely to have emerged had not a huge asteroid struck the Mexican coast some 65 million years ago. If the dinosaurs had endured it's very probable that the fauna of the Earth would look completely different.
To me this strongly indicates purely chance events shaped our planet and the life on it.
That's actually not quite accurate. First, we're not entirely sure the causal factors involved; we can't really say mammals (which already existed prior to the asteroid impact) wouldn't have originated; and most importantly, the great majority of species today originated well after the asteroid impact so the impact did not play a causal role. That said, to be sure there are many unique contingencies the absence of which could drastically effect life trajectories. No doubt about that. This must be balanced though with the primary data from the fossil record which shows the same consistent patterns regardless of contingencies.
...You go out to the fossil record and see nothing or a few things before and then suddenly 'boom!' Entire communities with mass quantities of life suddenly appear out of nowhere.
But is this regarded as being a huge problem by evolutionary Biologists, or more a set of questions that are likely to be answered in time?
It is just as much an unexplained mystery today as it was in Darwin's day. If anything, it's more so because we know from much improved stratigraphic sampling and resolution and the definitive data provided by trace fossils that the abrupt explosion is not simply an artifact of an incomplete record, so we can't appeal to that like Darwin did.
That's actually not quite accurate. First, we're not entirely sure the causal factors involved; we can't really say mammals (which already existed prior to the asteroid impact) wouldn't have originated; and most importantly, the great majority of species today originated well after the asteroid impact so the impact did not play a causal role. That said, to be sure there are many unique contingencies the absence of which could drastically effect life trajectories. No doubt about that. This must be balanced though with the primary data from the fossil record which shows the same consistent patterns regardless of contingencies.
But a number of dinosaur species were highly efficient predators and any emerging species would have needed to compete against them. Isn't this seen as the main reason why the only (or very few) mammal species is believed to have been a burrowing, nocturnal rodent-like creature?
My point is that the impact and the destruction of species that followed, left the field open to any creature that was able to exploit it.
That's actually not quite accurate. First, we're not entirely sure the causal factors involved; we can't really say mammals (which already existed prior to the asteroid impact) wouldn't have originated; and most importantly, the great majority of species today originated well after the asteroid impact so the impact did not play a causal role. That said, to be sure there are many unique contingencies the absence of which could drastically effect life trajectories. No doubt about that. This must be balanced though with the primary data from the fossil record which shows the same consistent patterns regardless of contingencies.
But a number of dinosaur species were highly efficient predators and any emerging species would have needed to compete against them. Isn't this seen as the main reason why the only (or very few) mammal species is believed to have been a burrowing, nocturnal rodent-like creature?
My point is that the impact and the destruction of species that followed, left the field open to any creature that was able to exploit it.
We are very vertebrate centered. Dinosaurs and mammals are only a tiny fraction of life's diversity but receive inordinate focus and attention. Regarding competition, that's often the common assumption and hallmark sign of the 'struggle for life' and 'survival of the fittest' that characterize Darwin's natural selection. But in reality, it's far more difficult to prove from the fossil record and if we're looking at the bulk of the fossil record which is dominated by nearshore, bottom dwelling marine invertebrates, then we actually see very little evidence that major (and even minor) changes are the result of competition and increased fitness. Community interrelationships, stability, and ecological factors are far more determinative.
It is very clear and evident that major 'adaptive radiations' or 'metacladogenesis' or 'quantum evolution' (as they have been so named) occur after community extinction, so on this you are entirely correct. It is less clear--and has actually never been proved--that this results from adaptation and niche filling. That is commonly assumed rather than proved. Extinctions are followed by rapid reorganization of communities which then persist relatively unchanged in composition, diversity and ecologic associations for tens of millions of years until they go extinct and are abrupty replaced by new communities. This same pattern of abrupt appearance, long term persistence with little change, then extinction and replacement is the most well evidenced feature of the fossil record. The pattern is also the same regardless of the nature of the extinction (the asteroid impact at the close of the Mesozoic is only one of many extinction events; it's just the most well known to people).
Well if we're considering the survival of life in general, whatever form it takes, it's fair to say that none of the mass-extinction events had much if any effect because ultimately life survived.
But then those who support 'progressive creation' don't really have that in mind I think? What they seem to have in mind is the emergence of a particular species, our own, as if it was the 'goal and purpose' of the entire exercise.
And I've heard more than one paleantologist suggest that if it hadn't been for the extinction of the dinosaurs, the myriad varieties of mammals would probably not have emerged and thus, our species.
Well if we're considering the survival of life in general, whatever form it takes, it's fair to say that none of the mass-extinction events had much if any effect because ultimately life survived. Not sure what to make of this statement. While true that life ultimately survived, extinctions had huge, major, enormous effects on the history and trajectory of life's diversity
But then those who support 'progressive creation' don't really have that in mind I think? What they seem to have in mind is the emergence of a particular species, our own, as if it was the 'goal and purpose' of the entire exercise.diversity
Actually, not at all. Progressive creation is strictly based on empirical observations of the fossil record by early, influential geologists and paleontologists (there were no religious or theological motivations and underpinnings; it's simply their description of how the fossil record looks with its abrupt global scale turnovers, and it still looks the same way today). The fossil record is characterized by faunal succession and community replacement by new types of communities *on a global scale*. The Cambrian explosion is unique by the abrupt appearance of all animal phyla except one (bryozoans) during that time with no new animal phyla appearing since then up to today. But the geologically sudden, abruptness of the event is NOT unique. There are 9-10 such major, global turnovers in the types of life we see on earth. Almost as a rule, these global turnovers occur abruptly geologically with little to no evidence of evolutionary change or direct relationship. For example, there have been five major reef community-complex turnovers. None of these reef communities are directly related to each other evolutionarily. That is, none of these reef complexes are ancestral to any of the later ones. They are all wholly unique and believed to have originated de novo and independently of one another. Another example of a faunal replacement/turnover (one I've done research on in fact) involves the abrupt replacement of one trilobite community by a different trilobite community that is evolutionarily unrelated to the first (i.e., no direct relationship), and the transition is so abrupt that the two different communities are physically separated by only a stylolite in some localities (*think, hair-line crack in a rock).
With such abrupt turnovers it's no wonder that prior to Darwin they were described as a series of separate creations and catastrophes. They essentially look like 'different worlds' replacing each other, afterall. It certainly didn't look like evolution. We must keep in mind that gradualistic transitional series are the exceptional cases in the fossil record and that instead of appealing to the fossil record, Darwin had to explain why all his predicted intermediate forms were largely absent from the fossil record.
And I've heard more than one paleantologist suggest that if it hadn't been for the extinction of the dinosaurs, the myriad varieties of mammals would probably not have emerged and thus, our species. Well as I said there is most certainly a correlation between extinctions being followed by replacement communities and faunal turnover, and you are certainly describing the traditional, popular view known as the Suppression Hypothesis that basically says mammals were 'held back' from diversifying until there was more ecospace 'real estate' available from the dino extinction. But the reality is that it is all still a very contentious issue that is far from settled. There are at least five different hypotheses. For example, some think the post-dino mammal radiations are not due to the extinction event but a delayed response to the angiosperm flowering plant radiations of the mid-Cretaceous.
The bottom line is the issue remains contentious and the data do not completely fit with the Suppression Hypothesis. This is most clearly seen by the fact that the post-dino placental mammal radiations weren't the only mammal radiations. There were multiple, other mammal radiations both later than this (in the Eocene) and also at least two significant mammal radiation events *during* the time of the dinosaurs before the asteroid impact even happened (in the Jurassic and Cretaceous). And some mammal taxa continue to diversify *through* the extinction event almost as if it didn't happen and they were unaffected. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that most of the mammal groups appearing right after the Cretaceous have no living representatives today. Most extant forms actually appear later.
"Progressive creation is strictly based on empirical observations of the fossil record by early, influential geologists and paleontologists (there were no religious or theological motivations and underpinnings; it's simply their description of how the fossil record looks with its abrupt global scale turnovers, and it still looks the same way today)"
O/k but the term 'Progressive creation' has ID overtones to my mind and it seemed as if you were migrating in that direction. Glad to hear you are not.
To clarify, when these early geologists/paleontologists spoke of separate creations they were speaking of what looked to them like separate divine/supernatural creations (by God). What I mean by lack of religious/theological motivations is that 'progressive creation' did not originate from a religion or religious text or theological reflection or anything like that, but was developed strictly on the basis of observations of the fossil record. It was the fossil record history of life on our planet that led to and generated the idea (not the other way around, like the start-first-with-a-religious-idea-that-you-then-try-to-fit-to-the-natural-world approach that you criticize).
"...cake and eat it"? If anyone feels drawn to a 'divine-hand' explanation of any natural process, how is that not theologically inspired?
Only if those same early geologists/paleontologists had some creator in mind that was entirely divorced from all human religion, could they be said to be avoiding any religious text or theological reflection or anything of the kind.
"...cake and eat it"? If anyone feels drawn to a 'divine-hand' explanation of any natural process, how is that not theologically inspired?
Natural theology was acceptable in the science of the time (take Issac Newton, for example; even Darwin framed his work in the context of natural theology)
Only if those same early geologists/paleontologists had some creator in mind that was entirely divorced from all human religion, could they be said to be avoiding any religious text or theological reflection or anything of the kind.
You're thinking like a 'post-enlightenist' so of course such categories are abhorrent to you, and you will see any God-talk of any kind as theological in motivation. But by that standard we'd also have to reject Darwin's Origin of the Species as religious/theologically motivated for all his references to God and creation! As historians have noted, Darwin's "theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science." So you need to put it in historical context of the science of the day. I suspect religious views of the time (for these European scientists) ran the gamut from Christianity to deism. The point is the source of the idea of 'progressive creation' did not come from any religious doctrine or belief, but from observation of the fossil record itself. No one had ever thought of such an idea. It is the episodic nature of the fossil record that *alone* suggests it. Major taxa consistently appear in the fossil record out of nowhere and remain largely unchanged over time. We observe diversification within major taxa over the time, but the origins of the major taxic groups that provide material for these subsequent diversifications remain shrouded in mystery. For example, we can study evolutionary change and diversification over time within Class Chondrichthyes (sharks) and Osteichthyes (bony fish) once they appear in the fossil record, but the first appearance of sharks and fish are sudden, abrupt and seemingly out of nowhere. Fully formed sharks and fish just simply appear.
Darwin's theory of evolution is an entirely naturalistic process, so owes nothing to theology and any reference he may have made to theology and 'God' were entirely incidental to his work.
That is a world away from arriving at the conclusion of divine intervention of the 'guiding hand' kind that you reference with 'Progressive creation' and those who supported it. It owes much to conventional religious belief unless I've missed something that is.
But you're wrong to claim I abhor all references to a divine being. I may find the concept exceedingly improbable but that doesn't mean I feel revulsion for it, it's just that any creator-being I might be able to subscribe to would be utterly detached from human religion.
As I've been trying to emphasise, it's important to look at the whole picture that the jigsaw puzzle depicts, not just this or that choice piece that happens to accord with our beliefs.
YECs often claim that the accepted view of the fossil record is not based on facts and reality, but is a construct based on evolutionary assumptions. YECs further like to claim that their 'flood model' interpretation of the fossil record is an equally valid (if not better) interpretation of the same data that scientists interpret according to an 'evolutionary framework'. In short, YECs claim the difference between the two views is merely one of starting assumptions and different interpretations of the same data. Afterall, they say, paleontology and geology---unlike repeatable, observational, experimental science (such as chemistry)---are 'historical sciences' based on past history that no one was present to observe, so how can we really know for sure.
To the unwary and those who only have cursory knowledge of the fossil record (which is just about everyone) such rhetoric might sound like it has a ring of truth to it or might even seem reasonable. Unfortunately, it is just rhetoric, misinformation and spin. First, not only is there no recognized experimental vs. historical science dichotomy in modern science, in some ways the so-called 'historical sciences' have an advantage over the more heavily inductive 'experimental sciences' which must generalize findings and can never test every possible case of something to make absolutely sure, because the fossil record--as an unchanging record of the past--is what it is and will always remain so.
Second, it is an absolute fallacy that YEC flood geology is just an equally valid interpretation of the same data. It is not. YEC flood geology is a selective choosing and cherry picking of isolated bits of data while ignoring the rest of the data or twisting the facts to fit the theory.
***The proposition I put forward and defend here is that when it comes to the fossil record there are really only two possible interpretations of the data (and YECs don't like either one): it is either the result of evolution or progressive creation (or a combination of the two). There really are no other possibilities.
We are limited to these two possibilities not because of any 'evolutionary framework' or a priori assumptions, but because those are the only possibilities that reality allows. The fossil record is not an imaginary fiction or mental construct, but a consistent, unchanging record of the past that is what it is. It is a factual record.
This is important to unpack, because anti-evolution rhetoric can confuse people into thinking that the order or sequence of fossils in the record is arranged according to an evolutionary framework that 'assumes' old ages. But the truth is the fossil record has pretty much looked the same way it always has for hundreds of years since the inception of paleontology EVEN BEFORE Darwin's theory of evolution:
It is a record of *succession* of different types of life existing on this planet at different times. It is a record of *replacement*. Diverse and very different types of life existed at different times in earth's history. A group of organisms exist for a time then goes extinct and are replaced by a different assemblage of organisms which then goes extinct and are replaced by yet another different group of life forms, and so on and so on and so forth.
What's more, the basic pattern of succession is effectively the same worldwide. The order or sequence of different types of life on this planet over time is in fact so reliable that W. Smith (the father of geology) was able to accurately predict the pattern all across England (and eventually the world) using his still recognized *principle of faunal succession* in the 1700s to early 1800s long BEFORE Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859.
*Let me say that again because it bears repeating: the succession of life we see in the fossil record is effectively the same wherever we look at it worldwide and this succession or order of appearance and extinctions of different life forms at different times in earth's history was already a well-known and recognized fact BEFORE Darwin's theory of evolution. Heck, before Darwin was even born.
This sequence of succession is NOT an evolutionary construct but a known observational fact that predates Darwin.
There was also no 'assumption' of long ages, but evidence of long ages that was recognized BEFORE Darwin and before radiometric dating. Put another way, even though radiometric dating *is* reliable for determining 'absolute ages' we don't even need to appeal to it. We can simply use the 'relative' dating principles that Steno established back in the 1600s--a couple centuries before Darwin. Principles that everyone (even YECs) accepts today. By using these principles we can determine the relative ages of different fossil bearing units by their physical relationships to each other. No radiometric dating needed. No assumption of long ages.
*The OBSERVED order of fossil succession combined with the physical relationships of rock units, together show that the fossil record is *much* longer than a year (and can't be the product of a one year global flood), and further demonstrates unequivocally the OBSERVATIONAL FACT that all the different types of life on this planet did NOT appear at the same time, but appeared at different times in earth's history in a series of predictable succession-extinctions that are recorded worldwide in the fossil record.
Early paleontologists and geologists who predated Darwin (including Christians) recognized that the fossil record showed that there had been numerous successions or turnovers of different types of life that always occurred in the same order. Some of them interpreted these turnovers as a series of separate creation ('progressive creation')-extinction/catastrophe events (with Noah's flood possibly the last one recorded; but even Christians of the time recognized the fossil record wasn't the result of a single Noah's flood catastrophe in the span of a year but represented a much longer period of time and multiple turnovers/successions of life).
***The fossil record still looks the same today as it did back then before Darwin was even around. It is a record of changing life on this planet of different types of life existing and going extinct at different times, and not at the same time, encompassing a period of time much, much longer than a year. As such, there are really only two possible explanations of the observational facts: evolution or progressive creation (or some combo of the two).