>BH>Probably. As I've said before, my position is simply that I don't
>>reject evolution.
This is Stephen
>
>Bill, "evolution", (ie. Darwinist macro-evolution), means:
>
>"All livings things, past and present, are descended with modification
>from a common ancestor, by a fully naturalistic process, involving
>random mutations and cumulative natural selection mechanisms" (my
>definition).
_Source of above definition noted_
The definition of evolution that appears to be most common among the
geneticists who dominate evolution theory today is
Variation in the distribution of alleles in a population from generation to
generation
(cf. Eldredge, "Reinventing Darwin: ". That's not the best reference for
this definition, but Eldredge gives it and critiques it.)
Stephen is quite right that there is another component to evolution that is
acknowledged by geneticists, even though it's not part of their "official"
definition, and that is the common descent scenario and, in the case of
Dawkins, Sagan and others, the illegitimate metaphysical conclusion that
since God does not appear to be needed to make such a scheme work, God must
either not be present or must be irrelevant.
When I say I don't reject evolution, I mean that I don't reject the
geneticists' "official" definition and I don't reject the possibility of
common descent. What I totally and categorically reject is the claim that
all evolutionary phenomena can be extrapolated from variations in gene
distributions. Eldredge rejects it too, claiming that the geneticists are
papering over the influence of changing environmental conditions and
typical responses such as migration. I agree with Eldredge, but I would
also submit that God is sovereign over the environmental conditions and the
gene distributions. Whether or not we can prove it, He is in complete
control.
>
>If you are "probably more of a progressive creationist" then IMHO you
>*cannot* also claim "I don't reject evolution". Darwinist
>macro-evolution hangs together as a *system*. If you take *any*
>element out of the above definition, then you don't really have
>"evolution".
Remember, that was your definition of evolution. Try posting that
definition on talk.origins and you will be corrected.
Stephen also made some comments about God acting at the macro level that I
mostly agree with:
>OK. But such "creative effort" on God's part does not limit His
>freedom to supplement to, or even override, these "properties of the
>objects in nature to make nature".
Agreed.
>Also, these properties may be at a
>micro level and it is IMHO a reductionist fallacy to assume that macro
>level effects are just micro level causes extrapolated. AFAIK few if
>any macro level laws and events are discoverable and/or predictable at the
> micro level.
Totally agree. Are you sure you're not an engineer? (that's intended to be
a compliment)
>Finally the "mechanism that responds to His commands smoothly"
>may not be "exactly in the way He wants it to" be. For example, the
>world as created was "very good" (Gn 1:31), yet it needed further work
>by man to "subdue" it (Gn 1:28). IOW, a smoothly functioning
>mechanistic world may appeal to an engineer (<g>) but it may only be
>the flat drawing board upon which the Engineer-in-Chief built his new
>designs.
Another way of looking at this might be that God had a purpose in requiring
man to subdue the earth, and the earth was initially a perfect instrument
for the "training program" God intended to put man through.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)