--------------E005103E45E1501CE6D00C3C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Andrew,
You wrote:
> Also I want to talk a bit about Genesis
> from common ground (if it is what I suppose it to be) therefore please lay
> off the inerrancy literal or not debate. It is a good talk just not what I
> am trying to hear about.
> I think I can be most clear if I stick with one point and see what folks
> think. Let's take the bird. Assuming that birds came from dinos through an
> unbroken chain of mothers and it was fairly smooth and gradual and very
> naturaly selecty in general. In light of that where are we forced to stand
> as to design.
If questions regarding the literal, allegorical or mythical nature of Genesis
are forbidden, then we are free to think what we want regarding design or the
lack there of. I do not think these issues are separable, i.e. the concept of
design or its refutation is tied directly to Genesis; for without Genesis, we
would "have no need of that (theistic) hypothesis", (I think Laplace said this
to Napoleon concerning his work in mechanics?)
> I mean
> was there a bird in God's mind before one flew in the sky? Is a bird a goal
> that was meant to be reached? Does not our faith demand that maybe we can't
> rewind and repeat the tape but that the tape had some parameters as to
> where it would run to?
The answer to the first question is simple: yes - by virtue of God's
omniscience (unless you want to believe that God's self limitation precluded
his foreknowledge of created creatures :-) ). When one of my students dropped
a new computer in our lab, he solemnly looked at me and said " it must have
been God's will; it happened!". I think our faith only makes demands on our
Christology and that our science can rewind "the tape" - if by such an analogy
you mean nature's progress. I also think the "parameters" are precisely what
we are discovering through the scientific method; we call them "laws".
> Why can't an adaption be heading some where? Like
> feathers; maybe they had some thermal use but so what? When I am welding
> something I might weld one arm on first and use that arm as a stand to
> raise the project up to finish. The arm was first for a reason. It had use
> in the coming together of the project but in the end I still meant it to be
> an arm not a stand. By comparing to welding I am not trying to move
> intervention in or miracle. Either way is fine. I suspect all is
> intervention anyway. So what is a bird and what is creation?
> Just looking for some fresh ideas here. feel free to ignore it if it bores
> you but if you do post please take it on my assumptions in place as much as
> is possible. Please no debate about the Dino-bird transition's reality that
> is not my point.I want to see how various brothers and sisters look at the
> wonderful coming to be of a bird.
> Andrew
Chance is blind but very creative; random mutations exploring a state space
that is innumerable but finite can and does produce unimaginable (to our minds
at least) diversity and novelty. However, it is the laws of science (and here I
include mathematics) that chance must adhere to; this is selection and produces
the appearance of functionality in that a particular fluctuation had a
landscape that allowed, favored and even amplified its development over sundry
and rival mutations. I am not a biologist, but I'll bet the list of known
biologically functionless features among God's creatures, is long indeed; i.e.
your welding arms, or remnants of it, are present after its purpose has been
served.
In Christ's Grace;
George
--------------E005103E45E1501CE6D00C3C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi Andrew,
You wrote:
Also I want to talk a bit about GenesisIf questions regarding the literal, allegorical or mythical nature of Genesis are forbidden, then we are free to think what we want regarding design or the lack there of. I do not think these issues are separable, i.e. the concept of design or its refutation is tied directly to Genesis; for without Genesis, we would "have no need of that (theistic) hypothesis", (I think Laplace said this to Napoleon concerning his work in mechanics?)
from common ground (if it is what I suppose it to be) therefore please lay
off the inerrancy literal or not debate. It is a good talk just not what I
am trying to hear about.
I think I can be most clear if I stick with one point and see what folks
think. Let's take the bird. Assuming that birds came from dinos through an
unbroken chain of mothers and it was fairly smooth and gradual and very
naturaly selecty in general. In light of that where are we forced to stand
as to design.
I meanThe answer to the first question is simple: yes - by virtue of God's omniscience (unless you want to believe that God's self limitation precluded his foreknowledge of created creatures :-) ). When one of my students dropped a new computer in our lab, he solemnly looked at me and said " it must have been God's will; it happened!". I think our faith only makes demands on our Christology and that our science can rewind "the tape" - if by such an analogy you mean nature's progress. I also think the "parameters" are precisely what we are discovering through the scientific method; we call them "laws".
was there a bird in God's mind before one flew in the sky? Is a bird a goal
that was meant to be reached? Does not our faith demand that maybe we can't
rewind and repeat the tape but that the tape had some parameters as to
where it would run to?
Why can't an adaption be heading some where? LikeChance is blind but very creative; random mutations exploring a state space that is innumerable but finite can and does produce unimaginable (to our minds at least) diversity and novelty. However, it is the laws of science (and here I include mathematics) that chance must adhere to; this is selection and produces the appearance of functionality in that a particular fluctuation had a landscape that allowed, favored and even amplified its development over sundry and rival mutations. I am not a biologist, but I'll bet the list of known biologically functionless features among God's creatures, is long indeed; i.e. your welding arms, or remnants of it, are present after its purpose has been served.
feathers; maybe they had some thermal use but so what? When I am welding
something I might weld one arm on first and use that arm as a stand to
raise the project up to finish. The arm was first for a reason. It had use
in the coming together of the project but in the end I still meant it to be
an arm not a stand. By comparing to welding I am not trying to move
intervention in or miracle. Either way is fine. I suspect all is
intervention anyway. So what is a bird and what is creation?
Just looking for some fresh ideas here. feel free to ignore it if it bores
you but if you do post please take it on my assumptions in place as much as
is possible. Please no debate about the Dino-bird transition's reality that
is not my point.I want to see how various brothers and sisters look at the
wonderful coming to be of a bird.
Andrew
In Christ's Grace;
George
--------------E005103E45E1501CE6D00C3C--
--------------7D0299F0E75A2B25CB692F13
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="gandrews.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for George Andrews
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="gandrews.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Andrews Jr.;George
tel;home:757 565 2890
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:College of William & Mary;Applied Sciences
adr:;;;Williamsburg;VA;23188;
version:2.1
email;internet:gandrews@as.wm.edu
title:Graduate Student
fn:George A. Andrews Jr.
end:vcard
--------------7D0299F0E75A2B25CB692F13--