On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 21:42:06 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
GM>I had been working on this post when Stephen Jones' posted his "Re: chance
>is incompatible with God's creation?" He provided me much information that
>substantiates the thesis I was advocating. Any way, here is the article,
>slightly rewritten.
Glenn is deluding himself if he *really* thinks that what I wrote
substantiates the thesis he was advocating! I quite clearly said that
"Theism has no problem with chance defined as 1) the `intersection of
two or more lines of causality'".
I also quite clearly said that theism was only incompatible with chance
defined as: 2) "the lack of any cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause
itself":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 08:46:12 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
SJ>Geisler says (and I agree) that the last two meanings of "chance": 2) "the lack
>of any cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause itself" are incompatible with
>theism: ...
>Theism has no problem with chance defined as 1) the "intersection of two or
>more lines of causality".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM>The impotent God of the Anti-Evolutionists
If Glenn really believes that the Evolutionists' God is compatible with
chance defined as: "2) `the lack of any cause'; or 3) "chance as a real
cause itself" then it is Glenn's Evolutionists' God which is "impotent"!
If things could happen without "any cause" then God is not ultimately
the cause of everything.
And if "chance" could be "a real cause itself" then again God could not
ultimately the cause of whatever chance caused.
Either way, God would not then be sovereign and omnipotent.
I doubt that there would be many Christian Evolutionists would agree
with Glenn on this.
GM>by Glenn R. Morton
>
>One of the things that both young-earth and old earth anti-evolutionists
>agree upon is the concept that life did not arise by chance. Some examples
>from the literature:
>
>"If chance is our creator, a universal absolute moral code no longer
>exists. The question, 'why does God allow it?' immediately becomes
>meaningless, a question that has plagued mankind during thousands of years"
>~ A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution,
(San
>Diego: Master Books, 1981), p. 5
Is Glenn here saying that Evolutionists believe that life *did* arise by
chance, in the sense of either: "the lack of any cause" or "chance as a
real cause itself"?
If yes, then I wonder if any on the Evolution side would agree with
Glenn?
If no, then what is Glenn's point?
BTW, this is page 6 of my copy of Wilder-Smith's, "The Natural
Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution".
GM>"By intelligence I mean that the Designer is capable of performing actions
>that cannot adequately be explained by appealing to chance - the Designer
>can act so as to render the chance hypothesis untenable." ~ William A.
>Dembski, "On the Very Possibility of Intelligent Design," in J. P.
>Moreland, editor, The Creation Hypothesis, (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity
>Press, 1994), p. 116.
This says nothing about the origin of life.
Does Glenn deny what Dembski says above?
GM>'Despite the attempts by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact
>is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
>fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are
>antithetical concepts.'" Henry M. Morris, "The Compromise Road," Impact,
>177, March, 1988, p. i,ii
This also says nothing about the origin of life.
And as I have pointed out to Glenn previously, these words of Morris
are actually a quote from Michael Denton, who is now is, (I
understand), an Evolutionist of sorts (albeit an anti-Darwinist)!
GM>"The theory that a combination of random genetic changes and natural
>selection has the power to create complex plants and animals from bacteria
>is also more a philosophical doctrine than an empirical one, being
>supported only by evidence of relatively trivial variation within
>pre-existing types such as is involved in the breeding of domestic
>animals." Phillip Johnson, "What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic
>Freedom and the Religious " This paper was published in the Sept/Oct 1995
>issue of Academe, the official journal of the American Association of
>University Professors. Accessed via,
>http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/aaup.htm
Nor does this say anything about the origin of life.
BTW that link won't work. Try
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/aaup.htm.
GM>If anti-evolutionists merely stated that God controlled the chance and
>things evolved there would be no problem.
Like a lot of Glenn's arguments, this depends for its existence on fuzzy
definitions. If Glenn defines what he means by "chance" his argument
would collapse.
Geisler has already said that of the three different meanings of
"chance": 1) "the fortuitous intersection of two or more lines of
causality"; 2) "the lack of any cause"; and 3) "that which happens
totally without cause" only the last two: "chance, conceived either as
the lack of a cause or as a cause in itself, is incompatible with theism"
(Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", 1999,
pp125-126).
GM>But anti-evolutionists rule out
>evolution as being impossible both biblically and due to chance.
This is simply not true. Maybe some extreme YECs "rule out evolution
as being impossible" but most "anti-evolutionists" don't "rule out
evolution as being impossible". I certainly don't claim that evolution is
"impossible". And Johnson has gone on record as saying that he
believes God could have created through an evolutionary process:
"I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He
wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a natural
evolutionary process instead." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
p14).
GM>In fact
>they fear chance so much that they say that chance would disprove God.
It is not a question of fearing chance. The fact is that if chance existed
in the sense of: "the lack of any cause" or "totally without cause" then
by definition God is not omnipotent and sovereign.
GM>Norman Geisler states:
>"Chance, conceived either as the lack of a cause or as a cause in itself, is
>incompatible with theism. As long as chance rules, . Arthur Koestler noted,
>"God is an anachronism" (cited in Sproul, 3). The existence of chance tips
>God off his cosmic throne. God and chance are mutually exclusive. If
>chance exists, God is not in complete control of the universe. There cannot
>even exist an intelligent Designer." (Geisler N.L.,"Encyclopedia of
>Christian Apologetics" 1999, p125).
Yes. "Chance, conceived either as the lack of a cause or as a cause in
itself, is incompatible with theism". But for Geisler "chance" as "merely
the fortuitous intersection of two or more lines of causality" is
compatible with theism.
For Glenn to wilfully continue to ignore this distinction and claim that
Geisler is saying that *all* forms of "chance" are "incompatible with
theism" and "would disprove God" is either self-delusion or dishonest.
GM>and Ken Ham actually says that evolution in any form is incompatible
with
>the Bible.
>
>"Worse still, theistic evolutionists (those who believe in both evolution
>and God) are actively helping to undermine the basis of the Gospel. As the
>psalmist asks in Psalm 11:3 (NIV), 'When the foundations are being
>destroyed what can the righteous do?' If the basis of the Gospel is
>destroyed, the structure built on that foundation (the Christian church)
>will largely collapse. If Christians wish to preserve the structure of
>Christianity, they must protect its foundation and therefore actively
>oppose evolution." ~ Ken Ham, The Lie, (San Diego: Master Books, 1987),
p. 76
This says nothing about chance.
GM>Sproul states:
>
>"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 chance 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: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology",
>Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1994, p3).
GM>I interpret these and similar statements to mean that God can not work
>through chance.
None of the statements abovesay anything about whether "God can not
work through chance".
Sproul's position is not that "God can not work through chance" but
that chance does not actually exist *in a real, physical, causal sense*:
"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...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: The
Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology", 1994, p6).
In this he is in good company for even the anti-Christian philosopher
Hume admitted that chance has no causal power:
"Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the
real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding, and
begets a like species of belief or opinion." (Hume D., "An Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding", Great Books in Philosophy, Prometheus: Buffalo,
1988, Section. 6, p55, in Sproul R.C., "Not a Chance", 1994, p209).
GM>But this is an unbiblical position as we shall see.
>
>To claim that Design and Chance are antithetical, to claim that all that is
>needed to rip God from the universe (as Sproul stupidly does) means one
>thing. God can not control chance..
Since Sproul's claim is that strictly speaking chance doesn't really exist
as a real entity but is a word "invented by (or because of) our
ignorance" (Sproul R.C., 1994, p19), then it is true that "God can not
control chance". Even God cannot control something that does not
really exist.
GM>If He could, then He would be able to
>use chance as part of His design if He so chose. In turn, this means that
>God is unable to work with chance. If God is unable to work with Chance,
>then God is not omnipotent!
That would be true if chance really was something. But if chance really was
"the lack of any cause"; or "a real cause itself" then as Sproul says: "God is not
sovereign, he is not God. If he is not God, he simply is not"(Sproul R.C.,
1994, p3).
GM>The anti-evolutionists are advocating an
>impotent God, one who snivels in a corner when faced with mean and nasty
>Chance.
Sometimes I wonder if Glenn really believes the stuff he writes!
Since the "anti-evolutionists" like Sproul and I don't even believe that
chance has any ontological reality, then to think that "Chance" (note
the capital `C') was "mean and nasty" would be to us like thinking the
Tooth Fairy was "mean and nasty"!
GM>This position that God can't use chance to create the universe and
>life actually means that Chance is greater than God.
No, it means that chance doesn't really exist. Glenn needs to take
notice of what his opponents actually say. Otherwise, Glenn is just
arguing with himself!
GM>And if, as the
>anti-evolutionists say, Chance is greater than God, then why should we not
>worship the greater power in the universe? Why should we not then worship
>Chance rather than the impotent God of the Anti-evolutionists?
The way Glenn capitalises "Chance" makes me wonder if Glenn does in
fact think Chance is something to be worshipped!
GM>Sproul's claim that Chance would dethrone God is a CLEAR admission that
>chance is greater than God! Sproul is afraid of chance because of what it
>would do to his impotent God!!!!! Sproul's God is impotent.
Round and round Glenn goes arguing his strawman caricature of
Sproul! He has never read Sproul's book. He only knows about Sproul
from my posting of quotes from his an Geisler's book, none of which
say what Glenn wants them to say.
The simple fact is that IF chance really existed as "the lack of any
cause"; or "a real cause itself", THEN God would not be omnipotent.
GM>Geisler's
>statement that God is inconsistent with with chance means that God is
>impotent in the face of chance. Geisler's God is therefore NOT omnipotent!
>The Christian God commands not only the universe but chance as well! The
>Christian God is OMNIPOTENT!!!! The only logical conclusion is that
>anti-evolutionary christians are not worshipping an omnipotent God but an
>impotent one.
The point is that a God who can co-exist with "the lack of any cause"
or something that is "a real cause itself" is not "The Christian God":
"Likewise Thomas Aquinas rejected chance as a material causality because it
would imply that Matter can arise spontaneously-that is, by chance or out
Cause-out of nothing. (Jaki S.L., "God and the Cosmologists", Regnery
Gateway: Washington DC, 1989, p145, in Sproul R.C., 1994, p24).
GM>The view of the incompatibility of Chance and Divine activities ignores
>abundant evidence of God using chance in the Bible. Here are some examples:
>
>The role of dice is crude and lacking direction, yet God allowed the
>disciples to choose Judas' replacement via the casting of lots (Act 1:26)!
>If God could condone chance in the selection of a disciple, then He most
>assuredly could use it for creating the diversity of life we see!
>
>[Ah but I forgot, Sproul claims that chance will dethrone God so chance
>must have chosen Matthias]
Dembski in his new book "Intelligent Design" shows that the Biblical
casting of lots to ascertain God's will, was a much more complex process
than we usually think.
But the point is that it is not "chance" which causes the outcome of a roll
of dice:
"Chance itself has no influence on the outcome of either the coin-toss or
the subsequent game....If we could conduct a closed experiment with a
coin-toss in a vacuum by a fixed point of beginning from a fixed position,
with a fixed number of revolutions and a fixed method of completion, and
if the controlled experiment were repeated, the fifty-fifty odds would
change dramatically. Indeed if the experiment were controlled enough, to
wager against a repeated result given fifty-fifty odds would be the nadir of
foolishness. It would be like betting against an instant replay of a horse
race on the grounds that the odds are against the long-shot winner of the
race duplicating his feat in the replay.
The term chance is also useful to describe games called "games of chance."
Card games, dice games, and the like involve uncertain outcomes that are
measured by probability quotients translated into odds. ...But in all this,
chance, though a meaningful term is not a causal factor in any of the above
transactions. It has no more power to influence the roll of the dice or the
toss of a coin than it does the creation of a universe. When Janet says that
chance is "invented by our ignorance," (Janet P., "Final Causes", 1891,
p19) he is closer to the mark. Aristotle allowed for the formal significance
of chance but not its material significance. Jaki comments: is'...when it
comes to material causality, Aristotle allows no chance and quite logically.
Chance as a material cause would imply for him the rise of something out
of no antecedent material cause, that is, out of nothing." (Jaki S.L., "God
and the Cosmologists", 1989, p142)
(Sproul R.C., "Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and
Cosmology", 1994, pp23-24)
GM>Lev 16:8 God had the Israelites cast lots for the goat to
>sacrifice.
>
>[Oh yeah Geisler says God doesn't exist if the goat is chosen by chance]
See above.
GM>In Josh 7:14 God told Joshua : In the morning therefore ye shall be brought
>according to your tribes: and it shall be, that the tribe which the LORD
>taketh shall come according to the families thereof; and the family which
>the LORD shall take shall come by households; and the household which the
>LORD shall take shall come man by man.
>
>(Comment: The word 'take' has the connotation of being taken by
>lot(chance). God here uses chance to detect Achan's sin.)
See above.
GM>Josh 18:6, Joshua said he would cast lots for the land in the presence of
>the Lord.
See above.
GM>Josh 18:8 Joshua cast lots. (Comment: if God couldn't control chance, then
>the land was divided in a way that God couldn't foreknow and thus it was
>not according to his will).
See above.
GM>1 chr 24 1-5 David cast lots to chose the order of service for the
>sanctuary officials
See above.
GM>Jonah 1:7 Jonah was selected by chance to be thrown overboard! Obviously
>Jonah was chosen by God.
>
>[Ah but I forgot, Sproul claims that chance will dethrone God so chance
>must have chosen Jonah. Sproul says that God isn't compatible with chance.]
See above.
GM>What a sniveling coward Sproul's God is--afraid of chance for fear of being
>dethroned.
See above. I wonder if Glenn even considers what God might think of Glenn
saying this?
GM>God uses chance.
See above.
GM>Some authorities believe that the urim and thummin of the ancient priest
>was a chance device which was used to discern God's will.
>
>Exodus 28:30 (NIV) Also put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastpiece,
>so they may be over Aaron's heart whenever he enters the presence of the
>LORD. Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for the
>Israelites over his heart before the LORD.
See above.
GM>If God can use chance to select a priest, make decisions and replace an
>apostle, why can God not use chance in evolution?
God can indeed use a multitude of complex causes, which we in our ignorance
ascribe to "chance". God can indeed use chance in the sense of: 1) the "intersection
of two or more lines of causality". What God cannot use, because He and they
cannot simultaneously exist, is chance defined as: 2) "the lack of any cause"; or 3)
"chance as a real cause itself".
GM>Many christians think
>that this would be a horrible thing, yet the Bible clearly indicates that
>that is exactly what has been done in the past.
See above. The problem is that Glenn is using the word "chance" with
undefined meanings. Because Christian theologians like Sproul and Geisler
say that *some* defintions of "chance" are incompatible with Christian
theism, Glenn tries to make out that they are saying that *all* definitions of
" are incompatible with Christian theism.
Glenn's aim, as always, is to try to knock out on a technicality "anti-
evolutionists" so that Evolution wins the fight on a forfeit. My view on this
has always been that if Evolution needs to stoop to such underhanded
tactics to win, then it can't be much of a theory!
GM>To believe in a God who can't use chance is to believe in an impotent God.
>But to believe in an omnipotent God means that God controls chance and thus
>that He can control the random mutations. In biological systems there is
>what is known as a phase or sequence space. God can control the outcome of
>chance operations because He designed the properties of phase spaces.
If "God can control the outcome of chance operations" then they are not
really chance in the sense that Sproul and Geisler are objecting to, namely
2) "the lack of any cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause itself". It is rather
chance in the sense of 1) the "intersection of two or more lines of
causality", which is compatible with Christian theism.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the most surprising negative results of palaeontological research in
the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately
scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some
justification to the incompleteness of the palaeontological record and to
lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which
have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost
complete absence of transitional forms." (Brouwer A., "General
Palaeontology", [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh &
London, 1967, pp162-163)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------