Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

There's that nasty word, "random" again, with its attendant suggestion
of trajectorylessness.
But even for a moment accepting that the host environments for
biological evolution impose no context which biases the local
probabilities of variation (a sort of silly posit), the variations are
nevertheless not occuring in isolation. There is at least one forcing
function, a powerful higher level one called "natural selection" that
interacts with the results of those "random" variations to influence the
trajectory of subsequent generations of variations, even IF the
processes WERE truly random. Simply put, the resultant development
trajectory is not random, even if the variation process is.

So it's not clear to me that the precise definition of random is (need
be?) a heavy hitter, other than in situations where that sort of rigor
is required by a discipline.

Or so it seemeth to me.

JimA

John Walley wrote:

> Lee Strobel is right. You can't have it both ways. Either God was
> involved in which it wasn't random or if it was random then God
> couldn't have been involved.
>
>
>
> This is a valid critique of Collins as well. Fuz Rana interviewed
> Collins on their radio broadcast and asked him that exact question,
> how he saw God's involvement in creation if he accepted the totally
> random processes of evolution? Collins waffled and said he didn't know.
>
>
>
> This is a disingenuous and dishonest critique of ID by TE's. We all
> have to accept some level of intelligent design in creation if we
> affirm God's role in creation.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Randy Isaac
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:26 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence
>
>
>
> The November 2007 issue of Christianity Today includes a book review
> titled "Deconstructing Dawkins" in which author Logan Paul Gage
> critiques McGrath's book "The Dawkins Delusion." I don't think it's
> available online yet so let me just type in two paragraphs of the
> article which I think deserve discussion. My point is not to agree or
> disagree but to say that this is an articulation of a critical point
> of difference within our communities that needs to be clearly addressed.
>
>
>
> "While theists can have a variety of legitimate views on life's
> evolution, surely they must maintain that the process involves
> intelligence. So the question is: Can an intelligent being use random
> mutations and natural selection to create? No. This is not a
> theological problem; it is a logical one. The words random and natural
> are meant to exclude intelligence. If God guides which mutations
> happen, the mutations are not random; if God chooses which organisms
> survive so as to guide life's evolution, the selection is intelligent
> rather than natural.
>
>
>
> "Theistic Darwinists maintain that God was "intimately involved" in
> creation, to use Francis Collins's words. But they also think life
> developed via genuinely random mutations and genuinely natural
> selection. Yet they never explain what God is doing in this process.
> Perhaps there is still room for him to start the whole thing off, but
> this abandons theism for deism."
>
>
>
>
>
> This is essentially the same argument that Lee Strobel used on the
> radio a few weeks ago when he firmly but respectfully rebuked Francis
> Collins. Evolution is inherently random and without guidance and is
> therefore mutually exclusive with divine guidance, he said.
>
>
>
> Randy
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 5 23:01:44 2007