Tedd Hadley asks:
Bertvan@aol.com writes
> in message <75.27fa5c5.260e383d@aol.com>:
> <snip>
> > The truth is one doesn't even have to be religious to consider
> > "random mutation and natural selection" a silly explanation for
> > macro evolution.
>
> Why is this a silly explanation?
I have no idea why Bertvan considers it silly, but let me explain briefly
why I do not.
I am a "theological creationist." That is, I believe the universe has been
given being by a Creator. I also believe that questions regarding the
formational history of the universe are being investigated with both
competence and integrity by the majority of professional scientists.
What was given being by the Creator? _Everything_ that the universe _is_ and
_is capable of doing_.
Focusing on capabilities, I view every formational capability manifest by
elementary particles, atoms, molecules, molecular aggregates, cells,
organisms, etc., as a 'gift of being' given to the universe by its Creator.
Another 'gift of being' is the universe's "potentiality space" of viable
life forms--a "space" in which similar life forms would be located close to
one another. (If you like, you could imagine clusters of points defining a
species, then clusters of clusters defining a genus, etc.)
Because I see the universe as a creation, I hold to the expectation that the
universe's potentiality space is vast and rich with potential life forms and
that the universe is also gifted with a robust set of formational
capabilities that function as connective pathways through that potentiality
space, thereby making evolutionary change possible. From a theological
creationist point of view, these qualities are seen as manifestations of the
Creator's creativity (in conceptualizing this universe's rich and robust
being) and the Creator's generosity (in giving such fullness of being to the
creation).
In this context, what are commonly called a 'random mutations' function as a
creator-provided means of exploring new regions of potentiality space, and
'natural selection' functions as a test of viability within the extant
ecosystem and physical environment.
So, to put this in the style of Genesis 1, the history of biotic evolution
(to which random mutation and natural selection contribute) would be
interpreted as the creation's response to the Creator's intention expressed
in words like, "Let there be an ongoing exploration of the creation's
potentiality space and let those creatures suited to their biotic and
physical environments be fruitful and multiply."
In conclusion, then, I see nothing silly in considering the possibility
that, _given a creation gifted from the outset with both a rich potentiality
space and a robust set of formational capabilities_, the remarkable
phenomenon of macro-evolution by means of random mutation and natural
selection might actually work.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 27 2000 - 19:49:03 EST