Doug Hayworth wrote:
> At 05:24 PM 6/28/00 -0500, you wrote:
[snip]
> My point was that data (such as Glen has
> posted examples of) strongly support the fact of common ancestry, in which
> case it is utter nonsense for Phil Johnson and others to make statements
> that microevolution is "acceptable" while macroevolution is not (he says
> this flat-out all the time). This is why I coupled my statement about the
> continuity of micro- and macroevolution to the statement "wedge of truth
> meets dose of reality". It was my way of adding support to Glen's frequent
> statements that these Christians need to face up to some hard cold
> data. God's Creation is more complete, robust, formidable, and wonderful
> than most people are willing to admit.
>
> Sincerely, Doug
Doug,
I don't know Phil Johnson's view on common ancestry. (I would suspect that he is
rather skeptical.) But I think I understand his reason for claiming that
microevolution but not macroevolution is acceptable. Common ancestry does not prove
continuity of natural causes. Therefore, common ancestry per se reveals nothing
about the creative capacity of nature. Common ancestry is a necessary but
insufficient condition for macroevolution (as Phil uses the word, meaning not just
speciation by natural causes alone, but development of all phyla from organic
precursors by natural causes alone). What would count as evidence for
macroevolution? Both (1) a continuous smooth genetic trajectory without any
viability gaps beginning with organic precursors and continuing throughout the
entire phylogenetic tree and (2) fossil and genetic evidence that correponds to
that trajectory. Since we are still a long way from achieving (1), [we don't yet
even have such a genetic trajectory for the origin of the simplest life form; it is
all speculation at this point] it is scientifically and philosophically
presumptious to declare that we know that nature did the whole thing on her own. I
think that is Phil's point, and I agree with it. You might respond that it is
presumptious to declare that nature *didn't* do the whole thing on her own. I
agree. But Phil's point (insofar as I've got him correctly here) still stands.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 16:22:57 EDT