DT
>Why is it more interesting and important? The means chosen to
>achieve an end is of great interest in human society! Engineers have
>made a whole discipline out of it.
But the "proof is in the pudding". The goal of any designer is the end
product not the method to achieve that end. Likewise, Scripture seems to
focus more on the Creation (i.e., the end product) rather than on the
process of fabrication.
DT
>The tools chosen to
>fabricate must relate in some way to these attributes of God.
I argue that it is the end result that best relates to the attributes of
God. I think your focus on the process rather than the product misses the
mark.
DT
>The key word to address IMO is PURPOSE. The eye and the ear have
>purposes: the eye is designed to see and the ear to hear. This is
>the meaning of Proverbs 20:12. Some alleged fabrication processes
>(e.g. Darwinian evolution) contradict this principle.
How?
DT
> - the reason I question this is
>that the fabrication process is an essential element of turning a
>design concept into an artefact. The tools used do matter when
>addressing issues of purpose, meaning and the character of the
>designer/craftsman.
If you can build a pyramid by carrying every stone by hand (a blunt
instrument) or using current construction technology (an elegant
instrument), the end result is the same and reveals the same purpose. In
this case, the tools used to achieve this end are less important in
understanding the purpose, meaning and character of the designer.
SC
>> But the truth is that if God created life using evolutionary tools, it
>> does not change the glory of the creation or the majesty of God one
>> iota.
DT
>But you are asserting the position which I am seeking to challenge!
>If God created using Darwinian "tools", I would have to completely
>revise my thinking on purpose.
And the needless tension between evolution and the Bible would diminish--a
worthy goal, indeed.
DT
>The complementary principle will not
>help us out of the problem because of the issue of purpose and
>design. Can a statement about undirected evolutionary change be
>complementary to a statement about God's craftsmanship?
I think that it is risky to assume that evolution is undirected, in either
a metaphysical or mechanistic sense. In fact, I would argue that even in
the mechanistic sense, evolution does have direction--this is implied in
the principle of natural selection. Whether this direction is divinely
inspired may not be know with certainty, nevertheless, it is not
inconceivable that a designer would have a hand in this step.
DT
Can a
>statement about adaptation to the environment be complementary to a
>statement about intelligent design?
Certainly.
Basing our thoughts on Proverbs
>20:12, was the ear made for hearing and the eye for seeing? Can this
>possibly be complementary to the idea that these organs are
>adaptations which have had the effect of increasing our ancestors
>chances of passing on their genes?
I see no reason why not. There is no unresolveable conflict between the
purposeful creation of organs and the evolutionary process, per se.
SC
>> My continuing point here, is that this issue has no relevance on the truth
>> or falsity of whether life arose via an evolutionary process. We can only
>> learn the truth about this through empirical investigation.
DT
>Do you not think that issues of purpose are involved when comparing
>some of the different options?
>(a) A unique chance event with an apparent probability of zero;
>(b) An inevitable event because of the self-assembling nature of
>matter;
>(c) A purposeful act of an extra-material agent.
The three options listed differ in their metaphysical content. I believe
that evolution can shoulder different metaphysical assumptions and this is
where the conflict lies--not in the scientific theory, but in the
metaphysical baggage that people with different beliefs attach to the
theory. The theory of evolution is certainly consistent with a
metaphysical viewpoint which admits to a lack of purpose in the world.
However, this viewpoint is not a necessary codicil to attach to the theory.
In fact, attaching such a metaphysical construct to the theory detracts
from its scientific utility.
So, the basis for this debate, as I see it, lies with differences in
metaphysical assumptions about the world and not in what the theory of
evolution does or does not tell us about the origin of life. It is
important to keep the metaphysics and physics in their proper place. By
mixing them, we run the risk of discarding a scientific principle because
we don't like the unnecessary metaphysical implications that some people
would attach to it.
I believe that a purposeful God created the Cosmos and all the life in it.
But there is no reason to believe that God did not use natural means to
create life and that we may be able to understand what those means were.
However, from the current debate on this reflector and elsewhere, it seems
to me that those who argue against the evolutionary model on the basis of
its supposed metaphysical implication, will reject any scientific
explanation of the origin of life, no matter how blunt or elegant.
Cheers,
Steve