On Fri, 26 Jan 1996 09:20:55 -0500 you wrote:
[...]
>BH>Probably. As I've said before, my position is simply that I don't
>reject evolution.
SJ>Bill, "evolution", (ie. Darwinist macro-evolution), means:
>
>"All livings things, past and present, are descended with modification
>from a common ancestor, by a fully naturalistic process, involving
>random mutations and cumulative natural selection mechanisms" (my
>definition).
BH>_Source of above definition noted_
It might be my definition, but *every* claim by evolutionists contains
those essential elements. Test: take any element out and you don't
have Darwinist macro-evolution. Try it.
BH>The definition of evolution that appears to be most common among
>the geneticists who dominate evolution theory today is
>
>Variation in the distribution of alleles in a population from generation to
>generation
>
>(cf. Eldredge, "Reinventing Darwin: ". That's not the best reference for
>this definition, but Eldredge gives it and critiques it.)
This is so broad it is meaningless. A Creation-Scientist or a
Lamarckian could subscribe to it.
It isn't even the one that Eldredge himself defended in his debate
with Phil. Eldredge defended *common ancestry* as the essential
feature of evolution.
BH>Stephen is quite right that there is another component to evolution
that is
>acknowledged by geneticists, even though it's not part of their "official"
>definition, and that is the common descent scenario and, in the case of
>Dawkins, Sagan and others, the illegitimate metaphysical conclusion that
>since God does not appear to be needed to make such a scheme work, God must
>either not be present or must be irrelevant.
Yes. Common descent, plus a fully naturalistic process.
BH>When I say I don't reject evolution, I mean that I don't reject the
>geneticists' "official" definition and I don't reject the possibility of
>common descent. What I totally and categorically reject is the claim that
>all evolutionary phenomena can be extrapolated from variations in gene
>distributions. Eldredge rejects it too, claiming that the geneticists are
>papering over the influence of changing environmental conditions and
>typical responses such as migration. I agree with Eldredge, but I would
>also submit that God is sovereign over the environmental conditions and the
>gene distributions. Whether or not we can prove it, He is in complete
>control.
By definition He "in complete control". Otherwise He is not God.
SJ>If you are "probably more of a progressive creationist" then IMHO
>you *cannot* also claim "I don't reject evolution". Darwinist
>macro-evolution hangs together as a *system*. If you take *any*
>element out of the above definition, then you don't really have
>"evolution".
BH>Remember, that was your definition of evolution. Try posting that
>definition on talk.origins and you will be corrected.
No doubt. But I will stand by my definition, nevertheless! :-)
BH>Stephen also made some comments about God acting at the macro level
>that I mostly agree with:
SJ>OK. But such "creative effort" on God's part does not limit His
>freedom to supplement to, or even override, these "properties of the
>objects in nature to make nature".
>
BH>Agreed.
This makes you, in principle at least, a PC.
SJ>Also, these properties may be at a
>micro level and it is IMHO a reductionist fallacy to assume that macro
>level effects are just micro level causes extrapolated. AFAIK few if
>any macro level laws and events are discoverable and/or predictable at the
> micro level.
BH>Totally agree. Are you sure you're not an engineer? (that's
>intended to be a compliment)
Thanks for the compliment, but no. I'm just a humble Bachelor of
Health Administration. No science or theology degrees. Just an
"unlearned and ignorant" man (Acts 4:13)! :-)
SJ>Finally the "mechanism that responds to His commands smoothly"
>may not be "exactly in the way He wants it to" be. For example, the
>world as created was "very good" (Gn 1:31), yet it needed further work
>by man to "subdue" it (Gn 1:28). IOW, a smoothly functioning
>mechanistic world may appeal to an engineer (<g>) but it may only be
>the flat drawing board upon which the Engineer-in-Chief built his new
>designs.
BH>Another way of looking at this might be that God had a purpose in
>requiring man to subdue the earth, and the earth was initially a
>perfect instrument for the "training program" God intended to put man
>through.
The Heb word for "subdue" in Gn 1:28 is very strong: