> Quarks and macro-evolution are both better mathematical
>models than observable realities, but the implications of evolution hold a
>far greater weight.
I would dispute that macroevolution (as originally conceived anyway) is a
mathematical model. The howls of come conventional biologists at the
mathematical modeling approaches of people like Kauffman document that this
is at least controversial. But this is a side issue.
>If quarks were suddenly observed today, most of world
>might notice, but probably continue on. Evolution tells us(presumably) of
>our origins. This has significant weight in the area of philosophy. In a
>day and age where the meaning of life has been discussed in volumes of
>literature, the evolution or direct creation of man touches on every person
>and the perception of this truth will determine the course and direction of
>their life.
>Again, it is the perception of reality which determines the course of our
>thinking and subsequently our actions.
>
Jeff, it seems to me that there is an implicit assumption in your argument
that if evolution is the correct model of how life developed, then life did
not develop under God's sovereignty, or perhaps even that God did not
create. I don't see why it is necessary to make that assumption. Col 1:17
says "And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together".
It seems to me that Paul is saying that God is sovereign over the entire
universe, from quarks to galaxies. Logically then, if evolution does
occur, God is sovereign over it moment by moment, and it produces only what
He Himself ordains it should produce.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)