BH>As Howard Van Till does, I tend to believe that the design is in
> >the properties of entities in nature."
> >
DT>This seems to me to advocate a model of "design-for-self-
> >assembly..."
>
BH> It doesn't look like self-assembly to me...
There must be scope for further discussion on this at some time in the
future. I accept that now is not the time.
DT>This is the real point of my response to Bill's post: is this
> >point an addition, or should it be a "Conversely, ..."??
> >It seems to me that these sentences are giving us a version of
> >intervention which is effectively contradicts the "design-for-
> >self-assembly" argument.
>
BH> As I said above, _I_ had not construed my view as a
> design-for-self-assembly view.
OK - I have misunderstood you. But I still don't have a grasp of
what you mean by "design in the properties of entities in nature".
BH> The claim that the design is "in" the properties is easily
> misconstrued.
> What I was trying to convey is that I believe God has put a great deal of
> creative effort into devising the minutest properties of the objects in
> nature to make nature a mechanism that responds to His commands smoothly
> and exactly in the way He wants it to.
Are you referring to the commands expressed in the laws of physics
and chemistry? If there is something more here, it perhaps needs
exploring further.
DT>But I want to put to Bill the thought that his view of God
> >guiding the process of evolution would be anathema to
> >evolutionary biologists.
>
BH> Probably it would be to some. I think the evolutionary biologist
> who
> concludes that God is not involved because the methods He uses show no
> evidence of God is making a fundamental error. Just because you cannot
> see, touch or measure something does not mean it doesn't exist.
Surely the issue is not whether the cause is amenable to study, but
whether it is a natural cause or not? If the evolutionary process
will not work because there is no special supernatural directing
influence, the evolutionary biologist will have a problem with the
causal explanation.
> I wanted to return to another point you made. You said, "They would want
> to say >>to you: Without God's special oversight of guidance (as distinct
> from his >>general upholding of his creation)..."
>
> _Is_ God's special oversight distinct from His general upholding of
> creation? We human beings may want to make distinctions like that, but do
> we know what we're talking about?
I consider that this distinction is embedded in your views! God's
general upholding of creation is his providence - part of the
thinking of TEs, PCs and YECs. No controversy here. God's special
oversight/guidance is the "invisible" ingredient you are proposing to
warrant the conclusion that evolutionary products are worthy of being
regarded as designed by God. It is a form of continuous
"intervention" which may be linked to PC views. Ultimately, I think
you are making a form of "creation" / "providence" distinction here.
> No, I don't really fit comfortably in the TE community -- although
> some of my best friends are TE's :-). I'm probably more of a
> progressive creationist.
Thanks for this comment - I was not trying to "label" you when
writing my last post, but to get a better orientation on various pro-
evolution comments you've made in discussions.
Thanks again for your post - lots of food for thought.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***