<<There is way more evidence for the theory of evolution than the theory of
creation.>>
Uh-oh. May Day, May Day...
First, what is the definition of "evolution"? It is constantly changing
because proponents mean it in different ways at different times. You seem to
call evolution:
<<evolution, change over time>>
Fine. No one disputes that. But what evolutionists really want it to mean is
"descent through modification." More, many of them want it to mean that the
universe and man "evolved" entirely through purposeless forces. When you get
to this level not only is there not "way more evidence," the evidence we have
is positively against it.
We just need to be clear which "evolution" we're talking about.
<< The theory of evolution might be wrong or need some altering,
BUT we can never reject the fact of evolution. This is why ICR is wrong,
and we must try and work on figuring out how life evolved.>>
Again, no one disputes a certain amount of change. This is called
micro-evolution, of course. Neon moths tend not to outproduce their darker
cousins in Pittsburgh. We don't need evolutionists to tell us that in a flood
cows drown.
But large scale, morphological change? Nah.
And ICR is NOT wrong in calling the metaphysical claims of evolution
illegitimate. When it crosses from science to metaphysics, it is no longer
science. This is not some imagined Baconian error. It is the real world
recognition of a philosophical mistake. Should we be teaching philosophical
mistakes in school? That's the issue.
<<Thanks Steve for your post on Augustine's views on the interpretation of
Genesis. I found that very interesting. I'd like to read more about
it.>>
The best rendition of this I've seen is Howard Van Till's article in First
Things, June/July 1993 issue. But I think Phillip Johnson gets the better of
him in his reply in the same issue, as in:
"The fundamental error that theistic evolutionists like Van Till make is to
assume that, because the modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis is
classified as 'science,' it is supported by impartially evaluated empirical
evidence. This is not true, and I think Van Till at some level realizes it is
not true. He accuses me of 'treating the absence of evidence (say, for some
process of activity thought to be an important contribution to evolutionary
change) as if it were evidence for the absence of full genealogical
continuity.' The process or activity in question is the Darwinian process of
creation by mutation and selection. The absence of evidence for THAT process
is hardly something to be brushed aside as 'rhetoric.' It means that, contrary
to the expansive claims of Darwinists, empirical investigation has not
discovered a mechanism by which the fantastically complex structures of plants
and animals can be built from vastly simpler organisms like bacteria and
protozoa."
He finishes with:
"Van Till writes that we must carefully distinguish 'between scientific
theorizing and naturalistic propoganda.' I agree, but we also need to
recognize that the persons who now rule science do not themselves know how to
make that distinction, and do not even want to make it. We will have to teach
them that naturalistic philosophy and scientific investigation are not the
same thing, and we cannot even begin to do that if our first priority is to
avoid conflict with the rulers of science."
I encourage you to read the whole exchange. Then, subscribe to this great
journal! You can write for a sample copy, care of The Institute on Religion
and Public Life, 156 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 400, New York, NY 10010.
Jim