Re: Developmental Evolutionary Biology

Terry M. Gray (grayt@Calvin.EDU)
Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:26:39 -0400

>Terry
>
>On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 10:36:04 -0400 you wrote to Art Chadwick:
>
>[...]
>
>TG>A long time ago, I asked this group, when it was composed of
>>different people, at what point common ancestry (evolutionary)
>>arguments broke down. For example, are all the species of beetles
>>descended from a common ancestor? How about all insects? How about
>>all arthropods? ... Where do you draw the line and on what basis do
>>you draw the line?
>
>I for one could grant you "common ancestry" all the way back to the
>first living cell, and indeed back to life's prebiotic "ancestor". So
>what? That is *not* the point. Darwinism claims that it knows that
>the process that transformed this prebiotic ancestor into a living
>cell and from there to a Biology Professor, was an undirected,
>purposeless, 100% naturalistic process. Some of us are not satisfied
>that they have made their point and are still waiting for experimental
>(or other) confirmation of their mechanism(s).
>
Thank you for granting me *the point*. You see that is the point. If you
accept that point, then you are an evolutionist. The claim that evolution
is undirected, purposeless, 100% naturalistic is a religious claim and not
a scientific claim. No Christian can accept that view. You and Phil
Johnson insist on confuse the religious views of atheistic evolutionists
with their scientific views (much the way that atheistic evolutionists
confuse them themselves).

>TG>Third, it seems that for some people biology is the only science
>>where similar structure, function, mechanism is a sign of an ad hoc
>>common design special creationist explanation exclusive of some other
>>more unified explanation. As I've said before, if it weren't for a
>>Biblical interpretation that demands special creation, the more
>>unified explanation embodied in evolutionary ideas would be readily
>>accepted. Many of us hear it shouting at us based on the
>>evidence--of course, we don't share the Biblical interpretation that
>>demands special creation.
>
>I can understand why a non-theist might not "share the Biblical
>interpretation that demands special creation." After all, he/she has
>no alternative but undirected, purposeless, natural processes. But I
>have difficulty understandling why a *theist*,who presumably believes
>in a God who will one day raise up from the dust every human being who
>has ever lived (Dan 12:2; Jn 6:39; Ac 24:15; Jn 11:24; Rev 20:12-13),
>not only does not "share the Biblical interpretation that demands
>special creation" but seemingly outrightly rejects it as improbable,
>if not impossible? :-)

Be careful what you say here. I believe that God created all things out of
nothing and by the word of his power. Special creation applies to the
origin of the universe in the first place and, I believe, to the origin of
the human soul. But apart from those two instances I see no Biblical
demand that anything else is "specially created" in the interventionist
sense that PC and YEC seem to demand. But there is nothing in that last
sentence that make anyone think that I am not a theist or that God doesn't
have the power to "raise up from the dust..."

TG

_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt