Re: A Proposal

Bill Hamilton (whamilto@mich.com)
Sun, 28 Jul 1996 19:57:45 -0400

Stephen Jones wrote in response to Loren:
>By not addressing my substantive point that: "`TE has no original
>theory of `basic design' unique to itself", ie. "it believes in the
>same random mutation + natural selection mechanism as Naturalistic
>Evolution, with no intervention by God", do you not implicitly
>confirm it? :-)

Stephen here appears to be assuming that "random" means "not controlled by
any entity". As a Christian I reject that. The concepts of randomness and
chance are used when _the observer_ -- a human scientist -- is unable to
precisely predict the outcome of an experiment or the consequences of a
natural process. No human being in his right mind would, I believe, claim
he/she could predict what God will do in a given circumstance (except of
course in those instances in Scripture where He has told us exactly what He
will do). Thus when studying nature, even though we are studying acts of
God, it's perfectly reasonable to use the concepts of probability theory
and to assume some degree of randomness. By doing so we are not (or should
not be) assuming that the outcome of events or experiments is not
controlled, but only that we cannot predict what the outcome will be.
Observationally, progressive creation may well be indistinguishable from
evolution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148