As for your second point, that believing God did it [that is, that He did it without using macro-evolution] is more likely simply
because it involves quantitatively fewer assumptions (wait -- is -that- what you meant by your phrase quoted above?), that seems to
be a non sequitur, in that (1) the quantity of assumptions is largely arbitrary, depending on how much one packs into an assumption
[e.g., an atheist could reply "You're assuming a being that (1) is/has a non-material mind, (2) is all-powerful, (3) is all-knowing,
..." etc.], and (2) the issue in any event is not the -quantity- of the assumptions, but their -quality-, i.e., their plausibility
or truth.
See what I mean?
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Chitwood [mailto:chitw@flash.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 4:43 PM
To: John E. Rylander; Calvin Evolution Reflector
Subject: Re: Putting evolution to work on the assembly line
You did go into great detail. I was thinking of Sherlock Holmes and his
use of Ockham's Razor. The possibility with the least amount of
possibilities is usually the right one.
In the case of God vs macroevolutionism, only one unprovable possibility is
involved when one says, "God created....". There are 3 unprovable
assumptions that must be made otherwise. 1. Environment was conducive to
life, 2.Chance created life, 3. random selection increased the variety.
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------