"The rest of the group" should know that Jan and I go back quite a few
years and have debated some of these things before now. I suppose that that
personal connection is true of many in this group.
Jan's main question: What is the principial difference between micro- and
macroevolution? It seems to me that empirical results point to the fact
that God did indeed create some separate types (perhaps, phyla?). Perhaps
these creations took place during a relatively short time termed the
Cambrian explosion. If we emphasize the empirical basis for this claim,
then we might not want to use the words "principial difference." But if we
emphasize that what in fact God did was to create separate types, then we
might want to express that there are "principial differences." In any
case, of course, God could cause macroevolution to occur. Thanks for
bringing up the question, Jan.
In the Lord,
Russ
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net
----------
> From: Jan de Koning <75674.3121@CompuServe.COM>
> To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Mere Creation conference
> Date: Monday, November 25, 1996 12:38 PM
>
> Dear Russ,
>
> Hallo, after these many years. How are you doing? I follow your
debate,
> but since I am not a biologist, as you know, I did not want to get
involved
> beyond a question about the difference between Macro- and
micro-evolution. What
> is the principial difference? You know, that I asked that question in
our
> meetings seven or so years ago. I still have not read an answer that
makes
> clear to me what the basic, principial (not principal) difference is. I
know
> you tried to tell me in the past, but we must be talking past each other.
If
> God can, in micro evolution change a little tiny bit, why can God not
make two
> or more, even larger, changes in a row? That at particular times more
kind of
> animals appear or disappear is God's work as much, as making sure that we
have
> so many different kinds of dogs. I cannot see the logical difference,
nor why
> it should be so different in principle. I am afraid, that the difference
is
> caused by the way you and I are reading Gen.1. I cannot read it as a
story in
> which scientific "truths" are told. All the arguments I read so far to
defend,
> that Gen.1 is "true" scientifically are based on an incorrect reading of
Gen.1,
> and make me feel uncomortable with the bible as a whole.
>
> "True scientifically" is a concept, that the bible does not know. The
> bible talks in a language well understood by the original hearers,
showing that
> God created and singing about that. True, truth and troth are all
derived from
> the same root: faithfulness. You know the arguments: Gen.1 sings of
God's
> faithfulness, and rejects the theologies of neighbouring religions. Here
I
> don't even talk about the very limited aspect most English writing
authors have
> about defining "science." I only want a clarification of how we can read
the
> bible together without getting involved in fruitless debates.
>
> Jan de Koning
> Willowdale, Ont.