I’m still really interested to hear about these gaps. Which gaps are you talking about?
(P.S. Reference to Gould doesn’t count.)
This is honestly puzzling to me, Edgar. There’s a fascinating, awe-inspiring, scientifically coherent explanation for macroevolution that makes sense, and you don’t even have a theological objection to it… yet you spend an awful lot of time rejecting it instead of understanding it better. Taking my debate-combat gear off for a moment… I just don’t get it.
Here, I’ll give you another intermediate position that you can take without embracing natural selection: You could believe in common descent. BUT you could still say that God miraculously inserted tweaks – added information – into the genetic code at key points in order to nudge evolution along.
This is more consonant with the evidence of natural history, without needing to believe that “new information” arose through stochastic processes. What do you think of this position?