I'm sad to hear about your loss John.
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Crowl <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 4:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: asa-digest V1 #1308
> >From: "John W. Burgeson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: Re: asa-digest V1 #1308
> >Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:50:23 -0600
> >Friend George Murphy wrote:
> >"N.B. - I am not saying that one has to _accept_ such approaches in order
> >to be theologically informed. "
> >Fair enough. I see your point.
> >Here is how I see it (part of the issue):
> >Assume for argument that there are only two positions
> >available, TE and PC.
> >What I see is a great lack of data to select from among these positions.
> >What I also see is a great desire on most people to select one of these
> >positions and defend it. (I include myself in this).
> >What I am coming to think is that, on the basis of the lack of data,
> >that claiming and defending one of these positions, at least
> >is both a waste of time and ultimately self-defeating.
> >But that's just my Tuesday morning musings. Lost a good friend this
> >to a stroke (she was only in her 40s and had so much to give people). God
> >moves in mysterious ways and in those ways I haven't a clue sometimes.
> > Burgy
it's hard to say anything more than that.
Especially in the murky waters we have made of the Creation/Evolution issue.
God is mysterious and I don't think we're always meant to know what he's
doing or trying to tell us because the timing maybe wrong or we may not be
ready. I personally disagree about the lack of evidence but I think much of
what has happened in Life's course on Earth is now irretrievably lost... the
molecular transformations that occurred in each species that existed,
especially the extinct ones, are so obscured by change that we have bare
traces and that's hideously complex DNA! The task of fully understanding
life's history is extremal - like trying to map the Universe, a work of
thousands of years. But I'm heartened by the bits and pieces that do get
uncovered since it means that we're on the right track - something that
deistic Creationism can't say of its "program".
However I must remain sceptical of any claims of purely random molecular
evolution since such a claim can't readily be proven. Molecular fossils seem
as "randomly" strewn through the record as regular fossils - mysterious and
largely unknown and more has been lost than we'll ever know. Evidence of
"progress" and histories of change, but the fine details forever obscured by
entropy. So randomness and directedness remain unproven by the records at
least in my eyes - PC and TE are probably indistinguishable if PC allows
"micro-creation" and TE can accept directed evolution rather than straight
None of this answers Burgy's hurt and I wasn't trying, just letting him know
that we heard his sorrow here in Cyberspace.