I'm back!
For those who don't know me, my name is Steve Jones. I am 52 years old,
and married with two adult children. I am an Australian evangelical
Christian layman, untrained in either science or theology, although I do
have university degrees in Management. I was converted to Christianity in
1967 and I am a church member and home group Bible study leader. I am
also keen on golf which I have just taken up again after a long absence.
I was a member of this list from 1995 till 1998, when I found that I could
not keep up with the demands of another list that I am on. I am still
extensively involved in that other list, so I probably will not have time to
read all the Reflector messages, or even answer all messages addressed to
me. Also, I like to research issues before making my replies, and include
quotes, so if I do reply I may be late. I haven't got the time to get involved
in long-drawn out, person-to-person, debates (as in the past), so I will post
all my messages to the group. Mostly my involvement will be posting of
articles: a) casting doubt on evolution in general and Darwinism in
particular; and b) supporting creation in general and Intelligent Design in
particular.
I believe that the Bible is the unique message of God revealed through
human writers, and I regard Genesis 1-11 as real history expressed in
symbolic form. My fundamental working hypothesis is that the book of
Scripture and the book of nature, both have the same Author, and therefore
cannot ultimately disagree with each other.
Basically my position on the Creation-Evolution spectrum is what I call
Mediate Creation. That is, I believe that God created immediately (ie. ex
nihilo) only the original raw materials of the universe and thereafter He
worked mediately (both naturally and supernaturally) through existing
materials and natural processes to form and fill His creation. I believe
this is what Genesis 1 depicts and it is the view of Calvin, Charles
and Alexander Hodge, and Louis Berkhof (of Calvin College).
Therefore I accept common ancestry, including humans (with the
possible exception of the first woman). Common ancestry is not the
exclusive property of evolution, and indeed, as Denton points out, it is
"compatible with almost any philosophy of nature" including some that are
"creationist":
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, where the
phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as we have
seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and the hierarchic
patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some kind of theory of
descent. But neither tell us anything about how the descent or evolution
might have occurred, as to whether the process was gradual or sudden, or
as to whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic
or even creationist. Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any
significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of
nature." (Denton M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1985, pp154-155).
In fact, I believe that common ancestry is among the very *best* evidence
supporting the supernatural intervention of an Intelligent Designer at
strategic points in life's history.
Personally I would have no problem with even the most extreme form of
Darwinist `blind watchmaker' evolution, if it were proved true, since the
Bible teaches quite clearly that God is in total control of all events, even
those that appear random to man (cf. Proverbs 16:33; 1 Kings 22:34).
However, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that Darwinist `blind
watchmaker' evolution is true, at least in any major sense.
Two quotes that best sum up my position are those of Phil Johnson:
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God exists who
could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who might have
chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead. I am not a
defender of creation-science..." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993,
p14)
and Christian geneticist David Wilcox:
"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the miraculous
action of the evident finger of God as a scientific hypothesis. In my world
view, all natural forces and events are fully contingent on the free choice of
the sovereign God. Thus, neither an adequate nor an inadequate "neo-
Darwinism (as mechanism) holds any terrors. But that is not what the data
looks like. And I feel no metaphysical necessity to exclude the evident
finger of God." (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism:
Science or Philosophy?" 1994, p215)
My position has superficially a number of elements in common with
naturalistic evolution, and some evolutionists (and creationists) may
assume that I am just a crypto-evolutionist. NOTHING COULD BE
FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. I believe that Naturalistic Evolution is a
counterfeit of the genuine article, which is Mediate Creation. I also believe
that Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms-if it was theistic, then it
was *creation* not evolution, and vice versa.
Having said all that, I look forward to renewing our dialogue on
Creation/Evolution, as time permits.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------