On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:09:44 -0800, Ken wrote:
KB>My name is Ken Boettger. I just joined the list. I also have a
>WWW site called Wilderness and Wildlands
>http://www.nwrain.net/~outdoor/toppage.html I think you will REALLY
>like that first page...Anyway, I just wanted to say hi and see if
>this list is what I think it is.
Welcome aboard! I will try out your web page when next on line.
KB>I am curious, I hold to a rather unorthodox understanding. Most
>wouldn't even call me a (it makes for a very lonely life).
>I believe that God created thru evolution. That said, is this the
>appropriate list for me to be on? Are there others here that hold
>to a similar belief? And a willingness to discuss this
>'understanding'?
You have come to *exactly* the right place! :-) Most of us believe
that to some extent, "God created thru evolution". I believed it for
about 20 years, and I am an orthodox Christian. Even Phil Johnson,
the founder of this list and author of Darwin on Trial would find
"evolution" as consistent with God's method of creation:
"If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new
organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change
consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could
readily be interpreted as evidence of God's use of secondary causes
to create." (Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of
Darwin", Christianity Today, October 24, 1994, p26).
However, while there is good evidence that "evolution" (as Darwinism
defines it, ie. random mutation plus natural selection) is a
sufficient explanation for the diversity of life (ie. change at the
lower taxa = microevolution), there is no conclusive evidence that
Darwinist "evolution" is adequate to explain the origin and disparity
(ie. change at the higher taxa = macroevolution) of life.
Johnson continues out:
"But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What
they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that
purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological
creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was
available. They have defined their task as finding the most
plausible-or least implausible-description of how biological creation
could occur in the absence of a creator." (Phillip E. Johnson,
"Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity Today,
October 24, 1994, p26)
Myposition is that of a sceptic, as opposed to a believer, of
"evolution", as Mike Behe:
"In writing on the topic of naturalism and evolution the problem
arises of what to call the contending camps. The difficulty comes
from the fact that although the term evolutionist is often used to
refer to persons who demand the unrelenting application of physical
laws to all phenomena in the universe, many other persons who are
opposed to this view are perfectly willing to concede that a limited
number of phenomena can be explained by Darwinistic principles.
Similarly, although a term like creationist brings to mind champions
of a young-earth theory, it is often applied to persons who do not
defend that thesis but do contend that natural laws have at some
point been superseded by a supernatural agency. Since the focus of
this symposium is the sufficiency of natural law, and in order to
avoid the confusing terminology discussed above, in this essay I will
use the term believer for those who believe in the universal
application of natural law and the term skeptic for those who doubt
it. This has the advantage of using terms for each side that the
opposite side generally regards positively." (Behe M.J.,
"Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to
Be Highly Isolated from Each Other", in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds.,
"Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and
Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p60)
My position is that of Progressive Creation, ie. I believe that
God supernaturally intervened at strategic points in biological
history (as He has in human history), over millions of years, to
create life and life's major features. I am happy to accept a large
role for natural selection as God's means of diversifing life in
eliminating the unfit and adapting the survivors to their local
environment (microevolution). However I do not believe that
"evolution" (ie. Darwinism's "Blind Watchmaker" mechanism of random
mutation guided by cumulative natural selection), is adequate to
explain the origin of life and life's major designs (macroevolution).
Perhaps you will flesh out more clearly what you mean by "evolution"
when you say that "God created thru evolution", and how you believe
God did this? Sorry to put you on the spot so soon! :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------