Re: Chance

David E Hurst (deh@freebird.ghofn.org)
Mon, 18 May 1998 10:01:12 -0500 (CDT)

Of course there is still area to discuss. Even a creationist has to
accept at least a certain degree of microevolution. If the account in
Genesis is true then all humans are descendents of Adam. The fact that
there is such a great variety of humans is exactly what microevolution --
variation WITHIN a species -- would predict. The creationist could even
admit that natural selection is one of the mechanisms for microevolution.
Where creationists and evolutionists disagree is (1) that "random
mutations," not God, are responsible for the variations, and (2) that
microevolution implies or proves macroevolution.

In the first case, random mutations are unprovable. How can you prove
that an event is random, versus the possibility that perhaps you just
don't know enough about the system in question to factor in all
causalities? A computer can feign randomness, but in the end, it is not
random at all, it is algorithmic.

In the second case, scientists are fond of telling us that you can't PROVE
macroevolution because it just takes too darn long. Okay, I reply, then
quit assuming macroevolution to be true, and admit that macroevolution is
merely a theory, not a "fact".

Erich Hurst
Houston, TX

On Sun, 17 May 1998, Ian Pitchford wrote:

> Yes, it is. Especially since it has been done all ready..
> Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
> and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
>
> REPLY: But if you believe that there is no need to discuss
> evolutionary theory, or anything else at all.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Ian