Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

Here are some quotes from S.C. Morris' chapters "evolution bound: the
ubiquity of convergence" and "towards a theology of evolution" in Life's
Solution:

"It is my suspicion that such a research program [into the
'trajectories' of
evolutionary convergence] might reveal a deeper fabric to biology in
which
Darwinian evolution remains central as the agency, but the nodes of
occupation are effectively determined from the Big Bang. One such
node, of
course, is the humanoid..."

"we can ask ourselves what salient facts of evolution are congruent
witha
Creation. In my judgment, they are as follows: .... (2) the existence
of an
immense universe of possibilities, but a way of navigating to that
minutest
of fractions which actually work; .... (3) the sensitivity of the
process
and the product, whereby nearly all alternatives are disastrously
maladaptive; (4) the inherency of life whereby complexity emerges as
much by
the rearrangement and co-option of pre-existing building blocks as
against
relying on novelties per se; ... (6) the inevitability of the
emergence of
sentience."

"... the complexity and beauty of 'Life's Solution' can never cease to
astound. None of it presupposes, let alone proves, the existence of
God,
but all is congruent. For some it will remain as the pointless
activity of
the Blind Watchmaker, but others may prefer to remove their dark
glasses.
The choice, of course, is yours."

It seems to me that S.C. Morris is saying science can show God, at
least in
the modest sense of pointing towards God that even Pascal could live
with.
And if "removing the dark glasses" means we can see God in the
complexity
and beauty of evolutionary convergence, I can't see how that God is
any less
a bearded guy in a lab coat than the God whose wisdom and beauty are
shown
in the incredibly improbable complexities of the blood clotting
cascade and
the bacterial flagellum. I'm not really convinced that the issues
with ID
are primarily theological, so long as one isn't a panentheist. I think
they're largely political and rhetorical, perhaps becoming
theological when
ID proponents make stronger claims about what ID arguments supposedly
"prove".

On 10/24/06, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:

> David O. wrote:
>
> But what's the diff when it comes to theology? God either engineered
> everything -- strictly through Darwinian process or dropping in
> some IC
> systems or whatever -- or He didn't. Convergent evolution either
> reflects
> God's design, or it doesn't. Either way, you have the guy with the
> long
> white beard in a lab coat.
>
>
>
>
> Generally, I think the difference _here_ (I'm not so familiar
> with Conway Morris' view), is that ID is saying that science
> can be done to show God (note I didn't say prove this time).
>
> We're saying we can infer design, but we cannot use science
> to do it. So it is a philosophical argument. We cannot show
> (let alone prove). If someone wants to say "there is no God!",
> we cannot rap them over the head with any "best answer" or
> "best conclusion", etc. Perhaps they are just lost and only God
> can rap them over the head in his own time, but that is God's
> work, not ours. Augustine does suggest that we cannot come
> to faith by our own power, so it is consistent with the fact
> that it cannot be proved, shown, suggested, etc. by way of
> science.
>
> by Grace we proceed indeed,
> Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 27 01:21:11 2006