From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 14:07:30 EDT
>From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
> My point is that the question of "the need, or lack of need, for
> supernatural intervention" can't be frutfully discussed as long as we were
> confusing the meaning of evolution in points #1 and #2 above. Thats why I
> wanted to separate the argument. Let me clarify once more:
>
> 1) Evolution of Elements refers to the change over time generated by the
> time evolution operator of QM
> 2) Evolution of Life refers to Darwinian evolution through mutation and
> natural selection (or some variation thereof).
I do not see these as independent statements. Both require the character of
the entire universe to be "just right" in the way specified by the RFEP.
>
> It is true that under RFEP these two are strictly equivalent, but that is
> NOT the issue at hand.
Perhaps you and I are focusing on different issues here, but I see the truth
or falsehood of the RFEP as one of the foundational differences between all
forms of episodic creationism (YEC, OEC, ID) on the one hand, and all forms
of naturalism (materialism, scientific naturalism, naturalistic theism) on
the other.
> If we argue *from* the equivalence, we will be
> assuming the validity of RFEP and there's nothing left to discuss.
Agreed. I have no reason to hide the starting point of my theorizing here.
(This is not to say, however, that it is merely an ad hoc premise based on
nothing more than personal whim or purely aesthetic considerations)
> The meaning of the word "evolution" is radically different in the two points
> if RFEP is not true. To assert their equivalence at this stage of argument is
> simply a way to sneak the conclusion in the back door.
Lets just say that I am happy to state my starting point and see where it
leads me.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 14:09:14 EDT