On Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 09:57 AM, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
> Characterizing biotic evolution as no more than the outcome of "natural
> selection for random genetic mistakes" is familiar rhetoric, but it has
> always struck me as inadequate and loaded with opportunities for biased
> inferences. For instance, "random" is sometimes improperly
> extrapolated into
> "purposeless," and "mistakes" is a word that can easily be used to
> convey a
> negative judgment. Furthermore, reproductive advantage is often
> presumed to
> be the sole criterion of continuation and movement along an
> evolutionary
> lineage of successive forms.
A somewhat workaday definition of randomness might be "that which we
cannot predict". I submit that
phenomena that are under control of an intellect other than our own
fall into that definition. I can predict
some things my wife will do or say, but not all. I can predict less of
what the prime minister of Japan will
do or say. And when it comes to God, what I can predict is
infinitesimal. Therefore phenomena under God's control
are likely to seem random -- at least much of the time.
Providentially, He has given us an intelligible nature,
the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
But it's no wonder many phenomena in nature seem to have a strong
component of randomness.
Bill Hamilton Rochester, MI 248 652 4148
Received on Sat Jun 26 12:06:30 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 26 2004 - 12:06:31 EDT