>BH>First, I don't want to get too caught up in definitions, so I'll
>>loosely define macro-evolution as the origin of novelty.
>
>>SJ:This is too loose. Creation could also be "the origin of novelty".
>
>BH>Yes, I think creation would be origin of novelty by definition. :-0
>
SJ:===
>So macro-evolution cannot be defined as "the origin of novelty" unless
>creation is ruled out of court, as not scientific.
I think loose definitions are frequently part of the problem in origins
discussions. But Steve's line of reasoning is incorrect. The fact that
creation and macro-evolution could both be considered the origin of novelty
does not mean that they conflict, or that one of them must be "ruled out of
court as nonscientific".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148