No, sorry this isn't about Elle MacPherson, Naomi Campbell, Linda
Evangelista, Cindy Crawford and Claudia Schiffer! <g>
Rather, its about five models of biological origins and development
from Millard J. Erickson's excellent "Christian Theology" (1985).
Erickson has them in his chapter "The Origin of Humanity" under the
heading "Views of Human Beginning", so they deal more specifically
with human creation/evolution, but of course they are applicable more
generally.
The models are:
1. Naturalistic Evolution (NE)
2. Fiat Creationism [FC]
3. Deistic Evolution [DC]
4. Theistic Evolution [TC]
5. Progressive Creationism [PC]
I will try to post them one per day, to give people an opportunity to
digest them. Reflectorites might use this opportunity to state which
model is closest to their position? I will try to tabulate these and
post the results.
Hopefully this might clear up some misunderstandings? <g>
Regards.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------
Naturalistic Evolution
There is a variety of views today regarding the origin of the human
species. They differ in the places they assign to the biblical and
the scientific data. One of these views is naturalistic evolution.
This is an attempt to account for man, as well as all other forms of
life, without appealing to a supernatural explanation. Immanent
processes within nature have produced man and all else that exists.
There is no involvement by any divine person, either at the beginning
of or during the process.
All that is needed, according to naturalistic evolution, is atoms in
motion. A combination of atoms, motion, time, and chance has
fashioned what we currently have. These are the givens, posited as
the elements producing the result. No attempt is made to account for
them-they simply are there, the basis of everything else. Our world
is the result of chance or random combinations of atoms At the higher
levels or later stages of the process, something called "natural
selection" is at work. Nature is extremely prolific. It produces
many more offspring of any given species than can possibly survive.
Because of a shortage of the necessities of life, there is
competition. The best, the strongest, the most adaptive survive; the
others do not. As a result, there is a gradual upgrading of the
species. In addition, mutations occur. These are sudden variations,
novel features which did not appear in the earlier generations of a
species. Of the many mutations which occur, most are useless, even
detrimental, but a few are truly helpful in the competitive struggle.
At the end of a long process of natural selection and useful mutations
man arrived on the scene. He is an organism of great complexity and
superior abilities, not because someone planned and made him that way,
but because these features enabled him to survive. He was the fittest
to survive, and so he did.
Although naturalistic evolution is not necessarily the best
explanation of the scientific data, it certainly is at least
compatible with them. There seems to be nothing from the realm of
biology, anthropology, or paleontology that absolutely contradicts it;
on the other hand, these disciplines do not offer material to support
its every contention either. In such cases it becomes necessary to
assume some of the generally accepted laws of nature, such as
uniformitarianism. But the real difficulty arises when we try to
reconcile this view with the biblical teaching. Surely, if the
opening chapters of Genesis say anything at all, they affirm that a
personal being was involved in the origin of man. The human race is
his doing.
(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI,
p478-479)
---------------------------------------------------------------