~~~~~~~~~
Dear Sister in Christ,
As I have said before, I greatly prefer the term, "development", rather than "evolution", when discussing how the state of "our" (physical and biological) universe progressed from the moment of creation up to the present.
And, I do that with several considerations:
~~~~~~~~~~~
So -- I respectfully submit that, for our purposes (unless discussing Darwinism, per se) we restrict discussions of the progress of God's universe (both physical and biological) to the use of the term, "development", as opposed to "evolution"...
Is being born again.... EVOLUTION!?.... survival of the fittest?.. Intelligent design?...
i.e. development, enlargement, evolvement, expansion, growth, increase, maturation, progress, progression, unfolding, unrolling, working out ....
I think it is a splendid idea to refer to the process as “development” since the term “evolution” has grown to mean mindless, no first or final cause.
I so agree — "evolution" has acquired so much foolish baggage by now that it's difficult to think of the term absent the presuppositions of a purely material or physical universe, which "mutates" randomly in space and time, with the help of "natural selection." [I wonder: What exactly is the definition of "natural selection?" I mean, exactly who or what is doing the "selecting?"]
If the universe were so — purely physical and essentially mechanical in its operations — then "evolution" might make some sense. But it seems very plain to me that no merely physical description of the universe can possibly account for what is in the real world of human observation and experience. Though one cannot measure intangibles — e.g., life, mind, consciousness — this is no proof that they do not exist. Darwin's evolution is totally silent about such things.
Dear brother in Christ, you propose "development" as the better word to describe the cosmic process, which has a Beginning in God's Word, and an Ending in His Final Judgment. That is, the Creation has a first cause and a final cause which science is largely blind to. You wrote:
By "development", I mean orderly progression, controlled by Divine (largely mathematical) rules, and managed, as required, via direct intervention by our Creator."Happenstance" vs. "development" — a most useful contrast! If everything's an "accident," then how can anything actually BE or MEAN anything? "Development," on the other hand, implies both mind and will at work in the achievement of purposes and goals. Human beings do this sort of thing all day long: This is both an epistemological and empirical fact. How can science leave this consideration out of its basic presuppositions about the fundamental character of the world without undermining its own fundamental logical position?
IOW, I view "evolution" as chaotically stumbling and bumbling "happenstance" — versus "development" — which is as precisely controlled as are the industrial processes....
And yet, seemingly, this is what many scientists do. Consciously, even aggressively: As Harvard's Richard Lewontin put it, "we cannot allow the Divine Foot inside the door [of science]." (I classify Lewontin as a metaphysical naturalist and determined atheist.)
So, count me in on adapting the use of "development," rather than "evolution."
Or maybe we could speak of "emergence?" The Logos is First to Last, the Alpha–Omega, specifying everything that happens in-between in space and time. From the Beginning it realizes its Purpose.
And there does seem to be a good deal of mathematics involved in the development of that pattern!
Thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your illuminating essay/post!