On Fri, 1 Mar 1996 08:48:46 -0500 you wrote:
>SJ>Once it is admitted that the "origin of life" did not happen by
>"chance", then there is no justification for believe that it was
>"evolution" that "began after the origin of life". It could just as
>easily have been progressive creation, ie. an Intelligent Designer
>guiding and controlling an "evolutionary" process in furtherance of
>a purpose.
>Brian>Sorry, I don't understand this line of reasoning at all.
Bill>I think I'm beginning to. While I disagree with Stephen, I thank
>him for being more articulate about his concerns than many
>creationists.
Thanks, but I don't think its original to me. Phil Johnson says much
the same:
"The conflict requires careful explanation, because the terms are
confusing. The concept of creation in itself does not imply
opposition to evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by
which one kind of living creature changes into something different. A
Creator might well have employed such a gradual process as a means of
creation. "Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it explicitly
or tacitly defined as fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution
that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., Second
Edition, 1993, pp3-4)
Bill>I have a difficult time distinguishing Stephen's statement above
>(an Intelligent Designer guiding and controlling an "evolutionary"
>process in furtherance of a purpose.) from theistic evolution.
Indeed. I have discussed this with Loren. My argument is that much of
what passes for TE is actually PC. For example, Terry Gray (who claims
to be a TE) posted in his defense Web page:
"It is my opinion there are no theological implications of my view.
To my knowledge there is no Biblical doctrine called into question by
my view. The doctrines of creation, providence, the covenant of
works, the fall, and redemption accomplished and applied are untouched
by my view. My view affirms that God is the Creator of all that is.
Everything comes into being by the Word of His power and according to
his plan, purpose, and design. GOD CAN AND DOES MIRACULOUSLY
"INTERVENE" INTO THE ORDINARY PROVIDENTIALLY DIRECTED COURSE OF
EVENTS. Human beings are specially created in the divine image and
are in a special covenental relationship with their Creator. These
beliefs are far removed from the atheism that predominates in some
presentations of evolution." (Gray T.M., "An Ecclesiastical Appeal in
the Case of the Session of Harvest OPC vs. Dr. Terry M. Gray", 13
September, 1995. emphasis mine)
and:
"A few citations from Warfield's own writings will suffice to make
the point that a theistically interpreted evolution is within in pale
of orthodoxy and that this extends even to the origin of Adam's body.
In his unpublished "Lectures on Anthropology" (Dec. 1888) (cited in
<I>Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, p. 119) he writes:
`The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary
antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold
to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not
permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow
miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve,
etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a
very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible. But if we
condition the theory by allowing the constant oversight of God in the
whole process, AND HIS OCCASIONAL SUPERNATURAL INTERFERENCE
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF NEW BEGINNINGS BY AN ACTUAL OUTPUT
OF CREATIVE FORCE, producing something new i.e., something not
included even in posse in the preceding conditions, we may hold to the
modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the ordinary
orthodox sense." (Gray T.M., ibid. emphasis mine)
Bill>But I do see that the "chance" factor in evolution concerns him
>considerably, and is probably one of the main differentiating factors
>between TE and PC in his view. I believe Stephen's view is that God
>and chance are mutually exclusive -- that if random chance was
>involved, God wasn't.
No. I have posted many times that I have no problem with God totally
controlling so-called "random chance", as affirmed in Pr 16:33 "The
lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD."
My point was that *Darwinism* cannot admit an "origin of life" that
did not happen by "chance", ie. purposeless, undirected material
forces. Once Darwinism allows purpose, direction and a non-material
Intelligent Designer intervening in the origin of life, there is no
way of denying that the same Intelligent Designer did not
intervene in the origin of life's major groups.
Bill>But what looks like random chance to a human investigator is not
>necessarily random chance. There is a subjective element in randomness.
>Davenport and Root (sorry, I don't have a more modern probability text in
>my office at the moment) say of randomness:
>
> ...in fact, the reason for our inability to predict exactly
> may be that
> (1) we do not know all the causal forces at work,
> (2) we do not have enough data about the conditions of the problem,
> (3) the forces are so complicated that calculation of their
> combined effect is unfeasible, or possibly
> (4) there is some basic indeterminacy in the physical world
>
> Wilbur B. Davenport, Jr, , and William L. Root
> Random Signals and Noise
> McGraw-Hill 1958
Indeed. Sproul says that there is no such thing as "chance":
"Our next question is crucial. How much influence or effect does
chance have on the coin's turning up heads? My answer is
categorically, "None whatsoever." I say that emphatically because
there is no possibility, real or imagined, that chance can have any
influence on the outcome of the coin-toss. Why not? Because chance
has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately
impotent. Again, I must justify my dogmatism on this point. I say
that chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not
anything. It has no power because it has no being. I've just
ventured into the realm of ontology, into metaphysics, if you please.
Chance is not an entity. It is not a thing that has power to affect
other things. It is no thing. To be more precise, it is nothing.
Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has no "isness."
Chance has no isness. I was technically incorrect even to say that
chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not. What are the
chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more
chance to do something than nothing has to do something." (Sproul
R.C., "Not a Chance", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1994, p6)
Bill>Three of the four sources of apparent randomness above involve
>man's lack of knowledge or abilitiy, not any fundamental
>indeterminacy. To this list I would add one more:
>
> (5) We do not have appropriate models for understanding the
> phenomenon in question (which may be the case with some
> paradoxes in quantum mechanics) Furthermore, we may
> not have the capability to develop appropriate models.
>
>Of the five reasons listed above for describing a phenomenon as random,
>four involve lack of knowledge or capability on the part of human
>investigators. The processes are not necessarily random at all. Even in
>D&R's case (4) it seems to me we must ask "indeterminacy from whose point
>of view?" What seems indeterminate from our point of view may be totally
>under control from God's point of view. Of course some would argue that
>this really erases category (4) and makes it part of category (5), and I
>would agree.
Agreed. In fact, Sproul points out that if "chance" really exists,
then the Christian God doesn't:
"As long as chance rules," Arthur Koestler has rwritten, "God is an
anachronism."1 (Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon, trans. Daphne
Hardy, Bantam: New York, 1941, p. 149) Koestler's dictum is a
sound conclusion . . . to a point. It is true that if chance rules, God
cannot. We can go further than Koestler. It is not necessary for
chance to rule in order to supplant God. Indeed chance requires little
authority at all if it is to depose God; all it needs to do the job is to
exist. The mere existence of hance is enough to rip God from his
cosmic throne. chance does not need to rule; it does not need to be
sovereign. If it exists as a mere impotent, humble servant, it leaves
God not only out of date, but out of a job. If chance exists in its
frailest possible form, God is finished. Nay, he could not be finished
because that would assume he once was. To finish something implies
that it at best was once active or existing. If chance exists in any size,
shape, or form, God cannot exist. The two are mutually exclusive. If
chance existed, it would destroy God's sovereignty. If God is not
sovereign, he is not God. If he is not God, he simply is not. If chance
is, God is not. If God is, chance is not. The two cannot coexist by
reason of the impossibility of the contrary." (Sproul R.C., "Not a
Chance", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1994, p3)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------