Re: [asa] Random and design

Dave,
    Although I usually agree with you, this time I would suggest that, at least for me, the issues are reversed. Though there may be hermeneutical questions remaining regarding Gen 1&2, the ones you cite don't seem to create a significant problem for TE as far as I can tell. Nor does the mechanism. Whether natural selection is sufficient or whether other mechanisms play a role doesn't have much impact on TE.
    But I do struggle with the randomness question. I've said that before and I haven't resolved it yet. I would state it a little differently than Gage but I do think that is the core problem. We often glibly say that scientific randomness does not preclude divine guidance. But wouldn't a system subject to supernatural guidance of any kind show, in some small way, a physical deviation from randomness? If not, then is there any significance to the divine guidance?

    Let's think of an example. Consider a collection of radioactive atoms. Physics can tell us quite precisely the probability that any given atom will undergo a radioactive decay in a given period of time. If under divine influence an atom decays earlier than it would have without that influence, then to keep the divine action 'hidden' there would have to be some compensating atom whose decay is delayed so that the aggregate stays within the scientific expectations. (ok, so we can't detect individual atoms but it's the principle!) Such a scenario would indeed be quite indistinguishable scientifically from the case without divine guidance. But would it really have resulted in a significant effect on our universe?

    Another way of talking about it is to speak of systems as canonical ensembles. The behavior of the ensemble is well defined but the individual elements may have random behavior. If the behavior of that system were subject to divine guidance, the ensemble would need to be invariant (to avoid scientific detection) but the elements might vary. Yet any element whose behavior is modified must be countered by another modified element to keep the ensemble behavior coherent.

    In other words, if a random system shows no evidence of being guided naturally and we insist that it can still be guided divinely, is there really any meaningful influence? Or are we just making an untestable faith claim?

    Randy
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Pim van Meurs
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Random and design

  [snip]

  Does this mean I settle the issue in favor of theistic evolution? No. There are, I think, hermeneutical questions about how to understand the language in Genesis 1 and 2 concerning God's creation of the animals and of human beings. Does the phrase "after their kinds" require separate creation and a fixity of species? Does creation of Adam from the "dust of the earth" and creation of Eve from Adam's "rib" require a separate, special creation of human beings? These are reasonable questions. There are also, I believe, reasonable questions about whether Darwinism completely succeeds scientifically on its own merits. There is very convincing genetic and fossil evidence, in my opinion, for gradual organismal change over time and the relatedness of different species. The mechanisms posited for such change -- such as natural selection and genetic drift -- however, often seem like hand waving to me. But I think it's important to be clear about the issues, and the broad theological issue of God sovereignly directing creation is not one of them.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 15 21:09:06 2006