Posted by Tom on September 17, 1999 at 16:47:01:
In Reply to: to the point posted by rpcman on September 17, 1999 at 13:46:15:
One of the difficulties with the whole debate over evolution and creation is terminological.
If one says "macroevolution" without any elaboration, most people will assume you mean macroevolution in the naturalistic sense,
the produce of blind, undirected natural processes. From my humble vantage point as an nonscientific
observor of evolutionary science, I find the evidence that that occurs unconvincing. Given my religious convictions I prefer to conclude that such developments are
products of intelligent design. Like Behe, I doubt that changes on such a scale are possible. But I don't have any problem
with the notion that creation could be gradualistic. In many respects, in fact, I find such a view more satisfying. God created
time. Why can't it be the context of creation? However if I called this "macroevolution" people would assume I meant that in the
Neo-Darwinian sense. I don't. Incidentally, I'm not sure Denton and Behe belong in the same camp. Denton seems to be more on the fence so far
as the adequacy of naturalistic evolution is concerned. I'm not even sure he held any religious views
at the time that he wrote his first book on the subject, though I'm told that he does now.
: I don't have much time so I'll just cut to the chase.
: : I'm contenting that the doctine of creation (which I don't regard
: : as the same thing as creationism) can easily be reconciled to such
: : principles as common ancestry, and ancient earth, progressive development
: : of living things.
: If you believe that an 'intelligent designer' is causing evolution (like Behe, Denton, etc.) then why did you begin the discussion by doubting macroevolution?
: In other words, if you believe in a common ancestor, then you must also believe in macroevolution, right?