>So my question is: was my minister mistaken on the concept of "natural
>selection", or is it true that in Darwin's original formulation of the
>concept, it necessitated the absence of divine activity?
Your minister might have been much comforted if he had read Darwin's
original book.
The way he describes natural selection is this:
In any given population there is a great deal of varation. Descendants
inherit these variations from their parents. If a population's environment
changes then the individuals in the population that have the phyisical
capability to survive that change survive, and the rest don't. The survivors
pass on their capability to their descendants. For example, if a population
lives in a grassland that becomes more and more arid, the individuals in the
population that are more drought tolerant will survive to pass on their
genes and the rest won't. As the climate becomes more and more arid the
population gets culled again and again until only the most drought tolerant
survive.
Scientists now know many of the reasons there is variation in a population.
But not all. So if you wanted to inject a diety into the process you could
simply say that Innana (who predates Yaweh historically) causes gene
replication errors in favored populations. So the lemur-like animal that is
thought to be one of the original human ancestors could have been
"genetically engineered" to survive and evolve into us. And the selection
process would still be "natural."
This, of course, would be strictly a religious belief, because it would be
very tough to provide scientific evidence for it.
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb