Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 14:27:42 EDT
> Re: "Evolution is nothing like this. There is no specific "end result."
> That's an interesting assertion (and a pretty commonly held notion). But
> just for argument's sake, how do you know that?
> Another perspective suggests that creation is toodling along just finem
> guided generally or specifically (your choice of flavor) by a plan and
> processes put in place from the outset.
> From inside that plan, we would likely have no way of "divining" the
> outcome or even a reasonably full picture of the objective(s). JimA
I can't say that I "know" it, but neither can I imagine an alternative. The
theory of evolution is based on non-directed processes like random mutation
and natural selection (rm+ns). If your suggestion is correct, then it seems
like it would take fine tuning to an entirely new level where the intial
conditions would need to be specified to such an extent that the whole
mechanistic/deterministic cascade of causes and effects that led to the
apparently *random* result of the appearance of man in the evolutionary
chain would in fact be inevitable.
This seems like a bit of a stretch to me. And that's why I asked Howard to
fill in the gaps in his RFEP which seems very vague when it attempts to
accomodate the Christian understanding of God and Creation. The Bible
declares that God formed man. The RFEP seems to be saying that God formed
the universe in such a way that things *like* man would be an inevitable
consequence. But if I am reading him correctly, it seems like he denies that
God *specifically* formed us since the RFEP seems only to assert that some
sort of creatures would evolve, while not specifying exactly which
Is this correct Howard? Or do you believe that God specified exactly which
creatures would evolve when he created the world?
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 14:24:21 EDT