"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> After offering a rather lengthy definition of "macroevoution" you say:
>
> > For the moment, let me call it macroevolution-T, as its
> > defining feature is the transastronomical improbability of such a
> > macroevolution-T step.
>
> As I have noted before, I sincerely doubt that we know enough about all
> possible pathways (and in the presence of all possible environments) to do a
> numerical evaluation of the probabilities in question. Without those
> numerical values, how would we know if "hidden options" need be exercised?
I dealt with this question in my paper "How has life and its diversity
been produced?" PSCF 44/2 (June 1992), 80-94. As our data are very
sparse, the necessity for "hidden options" cannot be proved, just made
plausible by the distribution of the evidence for and against: there is
much less evidence for the plausibility of such macroevolution-T
transitions by random processes than against it.
> > The conventional view of evolution claims that the various known
> > evolutionary mechanisms are fully adequate to account for all of
> > evolution. With this, I disagree: in my opinion they are incapable of
> > successfully producing macroevolution-T. However, for the theological
> > reason given above, this fact must be hidden in "God's hidden options",
> > which are not accessible to scientific investigation. At present, the
> > vast majority of the available evidence suggests that macroevolution-T
> > is an all-pervasive reality.
>
> See comment above.
See comment above.
> Later you express a rather comprehensive view of God's _responsibility_ for
> what takes place in this world:
>
> > God is the agent responsible for:
> > (1) all explicitely (in the biblical record) creative acts;
> > (2) all "natural" events and processes (in the Bible often attributed to
> > God);
> > (3) all parameter selections in the realm of "hidden options";
> > (4) all miracles not reducible to "natural" events and processes
> > ("signs").
> > The only exception to God's activity and responsibility is the free will
> > he has given to some of his creatures (humans and angels) - in some
> > circumstances.
>
> Isn't this the perspective that led Darwin to ask whether God was
> responsible for the Lisbon earthquake (that killed thousands of people,
> including many at worship, as I recall) or the death of his daughter? Are
> you really comfortable with the idea that God is the "responsible agent" for
> all such events? These are examples of events that cannot be ascribed to
> faults in human free will.
>
> Howard
Here we go with the theodicy problem. If God is almighty and all-loving,
couldn't he prevent natural disasters? Much more competent people than I
have dealt with this. I don't think we can be true to biblical
revelation and doubt that God is almighty and all-loving. The conundrum
must be solved by some combination of (at least) the following three
considerations:
(1) Free-will decisions accorded to angels and humans in some
circumstances;
(2) logical implications of God's creation including all "natural"
mechanisms (like plate tectonics, which is essential for human life);
(3) God taking the depth of all suffering on himself on the cross.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 12 2001 - 04:53:15 EST