David,
Before you spend a whole lotta time writing up that argument, or what I see coming in Part Deux of your essay, let me just point out that virtually every remotely strategic course in the world could be rhetorically argued as some direct lineage of Macdonald's identification of the ideal holes in the world.
As Bill Coore states, paraphrased, there are only so many notes on the instrument.
Think about ANGC, for example. If pressed, I'm sure I could find a template hole of Macdonald's to fit every single hole at ANGC 20 years later. Just off the top of my head we have the Eden 4th, the Road 5th, the semi-redan 6th, the original "Home" 7th, the Alps 8th, the Leven 10th, the "Short" 12th, the cape 13th, and so on....
Or, better yet, in modern times, let's finish our round at TPC Ponte Vedra with the "Road" 16th, the '"Short" 17th, and the "Cape" 18th.
Should we credit the design of both of these courses to CB Macdonald?
Of course not.
We only do that when we find specific proof and direct evidence that someone has actually purposefully planned the holes on a specific site.
There is NO evidence that Macdonald ever did so at Merion, and no one who claims that he did.
The "absence of evidence being proof of nothing" has to be the most specious argument, and most egregious misrepresentation of actual factually-based scientific theory since the study of golf course archtectural history began in earnest rougly 30 years ago. At it's core, it essentially argues that NOTHING that we know is meaningful, or definitive, or conclusive, but that we should simply wipe our minds free of logic, of knowledge, and of facts, because there exists some remote possibility, however remote, that somewhere, somehow, down the line, some additional evidence will surface that will contradict everything we've known prior.
It is the research equivalent of existentialism, where simply because one has conscious thought, and therefore proof of existence, the rest of the world is an open book, subject to individual interpretation and devoid of prior opinion and precedence.
***EDIT PRIOR POST***
Wow, David...I just read what you posted regarding what you think the MCC Minutes that Tom Paul just posted about the NGLA trip really mean.
No disrespect intended, but if you had a point #7 stating that they then got on a rocket ship to Mars and Macdonald was their captain it would have at least as much direct physical evidence as points 1 through 6.