On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 11:07:00 -0500, Matthew Heaney wrote:
>SJ>Like many of arguments in the Creation/Evolution debate, this one thrives on
>>the ambiguity of the key word(s) - in this case "chance".
MH>Any debate about whether "God is compatible with chance" is strictly a
>theological debate. It has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
[...]
Disagree. I happen to believe that God is real, and that truth is one.
Therefore, if a theological fact is true, ie. that the existence of God is
incompatible with chance in the sense of "the lack of any cause" or "as a
real cause itself", then it applies to "evolutionary theory" along with
everything else.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the most surprising negative results of palaeontological research in
the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately
scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some
justification to the incompleteness of the palaeontological record and to
lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which
have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost
complete absence of transitional forms." (Brouwer A., "General
Palaeontology", [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh &
London, 1967, pp162-163)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------