Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

Allan makes a good point. It seems to me that Strobel is making two big
errors. First he thinks that when someone says "random" that it has to
mean a uniform probablility distribution, and second that "creation"
refers only to origin, rather than origin plus development.
Don

> Randy Isaac quotes a book reviewer as saying (with Lee Strobel agreeing):
> ----------------
> "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."
> -----------
>
> But if one takes this logical viewpoint, one cannot consistently be an
> OEC
> like Strobel either. What about stellar evolution? I believe people
> like
> Strobel and Hugh Ross would say that the development of stars unfolded
> over
> billions of years entirely from natural laws, with no extra input from
> "intelligence" except perhaps at the Big Bang itself. Yet the Bible
> tells us God made
> the stars. So, if one really takes the logical position that it only
> counts
> as "creation" if some "intelligence" participates in the process in a
> non-natural way, to be consistent one must insist on such intelligent
> intervention
> for stars also in order to "make room" for God.
>
> Of course, most OECs do not invoke "intelligent design" for stars, instead
> ascribing their development to God's sovereignty over nature and selection
> of
> initial conditions. Why is the same logic not applied consistently to
> both
> stars and starfish?
>
> Allan (ASA Member)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's new at
> http://www.aol.com
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 6 04:03:18 2007