RE: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

A couple of points to stir the pot on this...

First, I'm reminded of an ASA Journal article:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF12-06Woolley.pdf
in which it states:

"Hodgson had much to say on the interrelatedness
of causation, purpose, and chance in
the evolutionary process of creation. More
often referring to chance as contingency,
he described it as “the apparent fact that
often there is an open possibility of things
happening this way or that.”70 Most importantly,
Hodgson’s emphasis was on the
factual nature of chance. That people use
chance devices, the outcomes of which are
consciously unknowable, is commonplace:
the coin toss at the beginning of a football
game to determine which team gets the ball
first is but one example. From this Hodgson
concluded:
Perhaps in God’s plan of creation
[contingencies] are needed to perform
a function similar to that for which
we invoke chance, and for that reason
He has given to the universe a mode
of reality which admits of their being
really themselves.71"

I suppose you could argue that since God designed the
rules of the game, that He'd foreknow the outcome in
advance at the beginning of creation and that
implicitly, this constitutes something that is not
truly "random"--indeed, in the example of the coin
toss before the game, theoretically the outcome is not
truly random--if we knew in sufficient detail the
physics of the motion of the hand and the coin's
interaction with the atmosphere, we would be able to
predict the outcome; thus, one could argue that the
outcome is both "random" and "designed". But then,
what do we mean when we say "random" mutations and
"natural" selection? Do we really mean to say that
they are random from God's point of view or that
"natural excludes intelligence" as the critique put
it? I don't think so--I think we use these terms from
a very human perspective...the mutations are random TO
US...species are selected and evolved
"unintelligently" from our point of view. It's all a
matter of your frame of reference--are you the created
or the Creator?

Hmmm...I seem to be babbling a bit... :) Let me move
on from pontificating to addressing the problems posed
in the critique more specifically....

The critique states: "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."

Again, I would question the first claim--the meaning
of "random" and "natural" depend to a certain extent
on the speaker and the hearer's perspectives and state
of knowledge; as to the latter portion, I think that
strictly speaking this is true assuming that God does
not self-limit His omniscience; however, I think that
it's important how you define "guides" and
"chooses"--if for example, you mean that God is
sitting in heaven, and one day decides, 'ya' know, I'm
tired of dinosaurs--let me send an asteroid to kill
'em off', I don't think God "chooses" in this sense.
Rather, I think it's fair to say that He designed the
rules of the game, and that He allows those rules to
play out according to His will; However, this does not
necessitate the abandonment of Theism for Deism
because we still believe that 1) it is by His
continual will that creation, through the natural
laws, is sustained (kind of like setting your car on
cruise control I suppose) and 2) that He has been
active during the course of human history to bring
about our salvation (time to interrupt cruise control
to make a turn!).

John writes:
"We all have to
> accept some level of intelligent design in creation
> if we affirm God's role
> in creation."

Yes, I would agree...as I wrote in my thread
"Reflections on Design", I think the very term
"design" implies intelligence (even without the
adjective in front of it) and that to affirm God's
role in creation necessitates an acceptance of the
general concept.

I think the bottom line question at hand is this: does
God self-limit Himself, or is everything foreknown by
God from the beginning such that things are "random"
or "unintelligent" only from our human frame of
reference? I'm not sure that we'll ever be able to
answer such a question, but regardless, I don't think
the human concepts of random mutation and natural
selection contradict the idea that an "intelligent
being" used them to create.

Why do I feel like I've been working on a brain teaser
for the past half hour?? Ug...time for bed... :)

In Christ,
Christine

--- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> 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
>
>
>
>

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

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 23:10:43 2007