Re: [asa] Re: Cosmological vs. Biological Design

Good comments, Dave, but I do think that the analogies with gravity and with history both miss the point. Gravity as a law of nature doesn't show purposelessness either and, precisely as you said, people don't claim any atheism as a result. As an example, it doesn't relate since there is no concept in gravity of anything that could have been otherwise. ID ( at least the version that I think is the most credible ) doesn't deny any of the laws of nature or processes involved in evolution. It looks at the part of evolution that proclaims that the tape can never be rerun. The part that says there are myriad possibilities in which life could evolve and the only reason it goes in the direction it does is environmental pressure. And even if that exact same pressure were to be exerted all over again, the outcome would be very different. The issue is whether science can truly say whether there is guidance of any kind over the direction of evolution. Has nothing to do with gaps of laws of nature but purpose in direction. TE seems to say that science cannot rule out supernatural guidance--it's just hidden so well we can never see it. ID seems to say that if such guidance is that well hidden, it doesn't really exist--or at least it doesn't matter whether it exists or not, the effect is negligible. This isn't saying God doesn't exist but that his providence is not evident.

The analogy of history is better than that of gravity because we do claim God's purposes are fulfilled throughout history and God's working through his people. The main reason the analogy fails here is that human history, as opposed to natural history, is very much influenced by people and a core belief of Christian faith is that the Holy Spirit works through human beings. So in history there is mechanism whereby God influences the direction of history--by working through humans, whether they believe in him or not. Someday this view may be challenged if biochemical explanations are claimed to be discovered for all human actions. But for now, that's in the future.

In the development of life, the question is why human beings came into being at all. Is it a chance occurrence without any guidance, supernatural or natural? Or is it influenced in some way? This is where the dialog needs to be. Evolution seems to say that the long-term outcome cannot be predicted. Given the state of affair of the universe say one billion years ago, there would be no possible prediction that Homo Sapiens Sapiens would ever exist. Reset the clock and it wouldn't appear next time.

Indeed, we all believe that God is intimately involved in all that happens. Both TE and ID seems to say that God willed that human beings come into existence. It's just a question of chance with hidden guidance or with some slightly perceptible guidance. Personally, I don't see any theological reason why one would be favored over another.

Randy
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Campbell
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Cosmological vs. Biological Design

  [snip]

  I think this is just another example of the "god of the gaps" category. Gravity shows no sign of guidance or purpose either, but people don't claim it implies atheism.

> In contrast, every interpretation of the Bible I know of supports the view of God's guidance and purpose in creation... But the truth is that the raw data, as observed by Darwin and a host of nature observers since then, gives no indication of any guidance.<

>This is where the ID paradigm has such appeal. They claim to find, at the microscopic level, some indication of guidance. No, contrary to the anti-ID rhetoric, they don't say that God is only involved in those indications of guidance, but they do say that without such indication the data point overwhelmingly to the absence of any intelligent guidance.<

  Both the supposed finding of guidance and lack of guidance presuppose assumptions about what form this guidance ought to take. The claim that God has to act in ways that are visible in raw scientific data owes more to an unduly high regard for the authority of science than to Biblical principles.

  A more useful comparison than gravity is history. The Bible certainly teaches that the course of history is determined by God, and that it is working towards His goal.
   [snip]
  Either God does things in ways that do not follow scientific rules or He doesn't do anything significant is not very different from god of the gaps.

  The Bible portrays God as intimately involved in all that happens, including things that occur by the laws of science. There's no reason to expect to find gaps of the sort Johnson et al. demand.

  If there is no evidence of any kind for supernatural influence on anything, then one might as well be a deist. However, if there is no scientific evidence of supernatural influence on the course of evolution, there could be excellent reasons for rejecting deism from other lines of evidence.

  --
  Dr. David Campbell
  425 Scientific Collections
  University of Alabama
  "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 16 21:54:01 2006