Bob DeHaan wrote: "The objection to all such mechanism
is that they comprise what Walter Remine
calls a smorgasbord of explanations, from which one
selects the one that seems most plausible."
The first time I encountered the theories of evolution,
I was struck (not as eloquently as Remaine) by the
same thought. After nearly 50 years of
studying the issues, I am still unconvinced that the concept usually called
"macro-evolution" has any real basis in reality. I know -- this is
an argument from "personal incredulity." To which accusation I plead
guily as charged, and respond only that my opposer must argue
on the basis of "personal credulity."
"Just so" stories are fun to read, and useful for creating a structure
upon which facts of the world can be constructed. But they remain
just that -- a structure, a model, nothing more.
To those who inhabit this list and claim the TE position, I stand in
awe (at least sometimes) of your intellect and power of argumentation.
What I say here is simply this -- you, and others, have failed
to convince me that the TE position is "true." That it is useful -- that
it can be defended from scripture -- that it is held by honorable
scholars much more learned than I -- I do not dispute. But I cannot
claim the position for myself.
Just 2c worth if anybody cares.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 27 2000 - 14:22:14 EDT