As scientists we can't prove that a natural process is directed by God.
That doesn't mean that said process is undirected, or that God is not
directing it. I think many creationists and evolutionists both make the
same error: implicitly believing that if we can explain how some event
occurs, then we have explained God out of the process. I believe the truth
is that God works at deeper levels than we humans can comprehend. As we
keep on studying nature we will continue to find natural explanations, when
we find explanations. Psalm 2:1-4 comes to mind. Why does God laugh at
the activities of the men who want to escape from God's "fetters" and
"shackles"? Because he knows that they do not have the means -- including
the knowledge -- to accomplish their rebellion.
>Other TEs would rather say that
>God interacts with his creation within the inherent freedom
>offered by stochastic processes; again, evolution is not
>"undirected.">>
A Presbyterian might quote the Westminster Confession:
1. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will,
freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby
neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of
the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established.
Look at the qualifying statements:
a. God is not the author of sin
b. God does not suppress the will of created creatures or interfere with
the contingency of secondary causes. _Rather_, it is because of His
providence that creatures can _have_ wills, and that secondary causes can
function at all.
The WC doesn't try to resolve the paradox (free will v. directed) I merely
states it and points out some conclusions we are _not_ to draw in trying to
resolve them. Quite a few arguments among Christians come about because
someone is trying to resolve a pareadox, such as this one, and forgetting
about one or more of the constraints.
> I fully accept that chance events and stochastic processes
>are determined by God, and I can understand that in some senses
>these events can be said to be directed. However, the context
>here is craftsmanship - and stochastic processes are not the best
>way of carrying out any creative activity.
As I say below, the creative activity may well have been completed, from
God's point of view, before any stochastic processes were set in motion.
>Using the analogy of
>human creativity (which seems legitimate, as we are made in God's
>image), we emphasise manual and cognitive skills and recognise
>that a human creator acts with deliberation. I can see
>stochastic direction as "providence" but have not been able to
>make the connection with "creation".
Agreed, although one might quibble that the stochastic processes may _mask_
the activities of God -- intentionally or unintentionally. I think it's
intentional, since God does not seem to desire to force himself on
unbelievers.
>
>DT >> "Can a statement about adaptation to the environment be
>complementary to a statement about intelligent design?">>
>LH >> "Absolutely! Human engineers are just now getting the idea
>of devices which can adapt themselves to their environment...">>
> I would suggest that "Darwinian design" has an appropriate
>analogy with artificial selection - which is properly understood
>as an intelligent manipulation of innate variation within the
>entity being selected. In the case of Darwinian design, man has
>rather more control over the "gene pool" than in plant and animal
>breeding.
I guess I don't understand what you mean by Darwinian design. I had
thought you meant design brought about by evolution, but then the part
about man having control above doesn't make sense.
...
> From a BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE, two considerations stand out
>in my mind (and I will be brief - there is always scope for
>further discussion if needed!).
>(a) The Scriptures consistently refer to creation as a finished,
>completed act of God.
Agreed
(The TE position MUST eventually blur the
>distinction between creation and providence - but these are not
>blurred in the Scriptures).
Not necessarily. If by creation the Scriptures mean the actual fabrication
of all the sturctures which make up nature, then TE would be blurring
creation and providence. However, suppose from God's point of view the
creation was accomplished when He issued the commands. In this scheme
God's creative role would comprise the design of nature and the setting in
motion of the various processes which would carry out his will. Providence
would comprise His oversight of the development of nature, which would
include any kind of interaction God desires to conduct with nature.
>(b) The proposed processes of evolutionary change (involving
>mutations and natural selection) invoke features which belong to
>the world subject to "bondage to decay". To associate such
>mechanisms with God's creative activity is to darken his
>character. It is effectively to say that God created a world
>which carries the consequences of Adam's sin - and even
>unbelievers find this thought unpalatable.
> From a SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, Phil Johnson has much to say.
>He points out that the evolutionary explanations of origins are
>far from descriptions. His analysis focuses attention on the
>role of naturalism in evolutionary theory.
I would say Phil speaks from a philosophical perspective, not a scientific
one. And what he says in the philosophical realm is worth listening to.
His view of science if applied consistently across the sciences, would have
to challenge a good many other fields besides evolution in order to be
consistent, though (virtually any field in which indirect measurements are
used, or in which multiple lines of evidence are used to support a model
which cannot easily be built on a single line of evidence.) In his book
"Reason in the balance" he identifies the real culprit in the current
cultural warfare between Christianity and the secular world: naturalism.
It's true that the theory of evolution can be used as an argument for
atheism -- I don't think it's a good argument for atheism and I have
atheist friends who agree -- but nevertheless that can be done. But the
fundamental problem is that there are and always have been people who just
don't _want_ to believe in God, theory of evolution or no.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)