Re: [asa] Why the kingdom of heaven belongs to children, why people reject evolution

> Their argument also shows once again why "theistic evolution" is an
> incoherent proposal. The dominant model of evolution rejects any claim of
> design -- end of argument.

This would only show that theistic evolution is out of line with the
dominant model of evolution, not that it is incoherent. However, what
is the dominant model of evolution?

If we are to look at biological evolution, and consider the scientific
consensus as the model of interest, we see an agreement that evolution
itself is not an intelligent designer. However, that should come as
no surprise to anyone who rejects the deification of nature. If God
created all things, then there aren't assorted gods or powers or
whatever working their own goals. Gravity is not trying to make
things come together, nor are things better on the floor than on the
shelf. Biological evolution likewise has no goal of its own, nor is a
horse's foot morally or otherwise better than mine because it is more
changed from the primitive form than mine. A horse's foot is better
than mine at some functions and worse at others; that is all biology
can say.

But if such a restriction against teleology within science is
accepted, it follows that biology is incapable of addressing questions
about whether a designer might be making use of evolution to achieve a
particular goal. We see throughout the Bible examples of God making
use of pagan rulers, etc. to unwittingly further His plans; is it not
at least as easy for Him to use organisms, forces of nature, etc.,
which are not in rebellion agaisnt Him?

It is the atheist who denies that biology tells us about teleology and
then claims teleological conclusions from it who is being incoherent.

-- 
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.