Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

A good response George.

Random is a good ploy to deny the possibility of evolution and convincing to many who don't grasp wither complexity of things (here Peacocke is so useful - but I soon get lost in his arguments). It is good to play this card to a believing gallery as chance is always assumed to be random.

I think many good scientists can be like Collins a trifle weak on theology and I do not mean that uncritically. Collins could not do his job if he spent the time as did Peacocke who altered his job to do it, as did Polkinghorne. Thus both did less "science" after 50. When I read Sir John Houghton's Does God play dice I found it weak theologically but that does not take away his immense contribution to the IPCC etc.

Questions of randomness are also good at deflecting the question away from the age of the cosmos. Prattle on about randomness and we can ignore the brute fact, totally incontrovertible that the universe is billions of years old.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence

  A lot of people have already replied to this. If I may add a few points:
      1) You will not in fact find "excludes intelligence" in a dictionary definition of "random" (or at least those I know of). The root words have connotations of force
          or violence." Gage's claim is false & shows that he has bought into the assertions of Dawkins et al. Similarly for "natural."
      1) Evolution cannot not completely random because, among other things, it is constrained by physical properties which obey certain laws. It involves an interplay
          of chance & regularity, as Peacocke, e.g., emphasized.
      2) The claim that evolution has in fact been "random" in a pure statistical sense could be verified only by charting all the changes that have taken
          place in the evolution leading to H. sapiens (as an example) over 3.5 Gyr - which has of course never been done nor will be.
      3) It's quite consistent with what we know of the mechanisms of evolution to think that God acts at the quantum level to cause mutations which "steer" the
          evolutionary process, as Bob Russell has suggested.

  But perhaps the most significant thing to note here is the way people like Gage & Strobel - & some on this list - continue to grasp at any reason they can find to reject evolution.

  Francis Collins is a good scientist & his Christian witness has helped to weaken the "warfare of science & religion" perception for the public, but he is not a theologian & it doesn't seem that he has gotten deeply into the modern science-theology dialogue & its discussions of divine action, such as the contributions of Peacocke & Russell that I noted. For all his strong points, he should not be regarded as presenting the most profound Christian offering in the dialogue.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Randy Isaac
    To: asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:26 PM
    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 Tue Nov 6 10:06:28 2007