Over the last several months I’ve been focused on reading the literature and having private conversations with those who have opposing views of me when it comes to origins. I’ve done this hoping to get a better understanding of their position and to find common ground. I think this has been a success. Through my studies I’ve come to the conclusion that there are four scientifically (i see no theological difficulties with any of these positions) plausible (or conceivable) views or models one could take:
The standard evolutionary model. Modern evolutionary theory can more or less explain the biodiversity we see today. This doesn’t explain away design. I’d argue there is good evidence for fine-tuning in biology and other aspects of evolutionary history.
Standard evolution model with intelligence as an additional mechanism. I picture this is something like Behe holds to. Not much different from (1). Just an additional mechanism.
Progressive creationism with universal common ancestry. This is something I get the feeling WLC favors. As does @Guy_Coe correct? Speciation happens due to saltations. Proponents of this position says it explains the stasis and discontinues in the fossil record
Separate ancestry. Or the orchard model. I think this position is favored by @pnelson. Correct me if I’m wrong here, Paul. Just thinking of your Dynamic Creation Model. This position argues that there are basic types (at the Family level seems to be the most popular) that are created separately then go on to evolve into all the genera and species within that family. It looks a bit like this:
I hold to number (1) and don’t see that changing. But these other positions I would feel comfortable with accepting if it came to that. Mainly because I don’t see research changing that much. In model number four I think evolutionary biologists would still have a huge role to play. Still would have to determine how the families evolved and draw relationships.
So my question is if something like number (4) were true what would research be like? How about for a biological anthropologist like me? Could I still study human evolution since we fall into the same family with other hominids? What about the zoologists? Geneticists? What would change and what would stay the same? Thoughts?
Note: do not argue against or for a certain model on this thread. If you wish to please start another thread. My questions are hypothetical