I have already posted two messages here without introducing myself. Since I
plan to remain, though doing much more reading than writing, I should
rectify that oversight.
Thanks to Steve Jones - with whom I have been corresponding on the
Australian Fidonet echo, Creationism vs. Evolutionism for the last two years
- who supplied the following brief introduction.
SJ>Welcome to Derek, my agnostic evolutionist sparring partner from
>the Australian fidonet Creation v Evolution echo, to whom I made the
>fatal mistake of mentioning the Reflector! :-)
So, who am I?
I am an Australian, 39 years old, married with 5 children - 1 man, 2 boys
and 2 girls.
Professionally, I am a telecommunications consultant with Telstra, the
dominant Australian telecommunications carrier and value-added service
provider. I also have an amateur interest in biology, especially evolution.
Theologically, I am an agnostic, since I do not believe that either the
existence of an ultimate "god" can be confirmed or that the nature of any
such "god" is knowable. For all practical purposes I am an atheist, since I
believe that, whether a god exists or not, there is no purpose to be served
by either believing in the existence of, or worshipping, such an entity. I
am deeply sceptical of all claims of supernatural phenomena. I reject
revelation transmitted via "chosen" people as a means of gaining knowledge
or understanding, since such revelation is so easily counterfeited that no
god worthy of the title would consider such an unreliable method of
revealing themselves.
Philosophically, I am an optimistic humanist, since I regard people
individually, and humanity at large, as finally responsible for, and capable
of, the care and ongoing development of humanity. In the absense of any
real, knowable god, or other sapient intelligence in the universe, I see
humanity as potential gods, at least of our own world. So, in answer to the
question, "Is there a God?", my answer might be, "Not yet, but we're learning!"
And where do I stand in the creation/evolution debate? I am a provisional
naturalistic evolutionist. I see the core of evolutionary theory as based on
the following premises:
The genetic replication processes found in life are highly accurate, but not
totally accurate. Thus, there is variation between organisms. There is no
basis for limitation to the available variation, except the limits imposed
by the genetic replication process itself. Since the genetic replication
process is common to all life, the total variety of existing and known
extinct life is within the limits of available variation.
In an environment of limited resources, some individual organisms will
survive and reproduce, and some will die before they reproduce. The
selective survival of individual organisms to reproduce requires no
supernatural presumptions.
All evolutionary processes can be reduced to the selective reproductive
success or failure of individual organisms. The study of "macro-evolution"
is a study of the relationships, patterns and environmental factors evident
in this selective reproductive success or failure of individual organisms.
The "conflict" between the Neo-Darwinian and P.E. positions on evolution is
no more than disagreement concerning the significance of particular
relationships, patterns and environmental factors.
Any new evolutionary theory that is to gain credence will contain almost all
of neo-Darwinian and PE theory, and will be a naturalistic theory. The
history of science, religion and philosophy shows clearly that once a
credible naturalistic explanation for a set of phenomena has been
promulgated and gained wide professional acceptance, supernatural
explanations are never widely accepted for that set of phenomena again.
Further, I believe the creation/evolution arena is not a useful forum for
deciding the viability of Christian belief. Given the number of Christian
evolutionists and non-Christian creationists in the world, it surprises me
that anyone thinks that it is a useful forum for this purpose. I fail to see
how the attempt to equate belief in evolution with disbelief in the
Christian God will benefit Christianity.
There are, however, items peripheral to the creation/evolution debate that
do impact on belief in a personal god. The main ones are the age of the
universe and the age of the earth. A physical universe centred around the
relationship between God and humanity makes sense in a 6,000-10,000 year old
geocentric universe inhabited by humans for 99.9997% of that time. A
physical universe centred around the relationship between God and humanity
makes no sense to me at all in a 15 billion year old "big bang"-centric
universe inhabited by humans for 0.002% of that time.
No doubt this message will generate some comment. I look forward to learning
from your responses.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------