Wayne,
Assuming this is addressed to me, I don’t view evolution as “evil”. In fact,
I think I accept all the same science on evolution as you do.
What I don’t accept however is the extremes that I think that many on this
list go to to criticize ID and also to embrace the prevailing atheistic view
of naturalistic Darwinian evolution.
I have seen responses to some of my posts that label me as an evolution
basher or an ID supporter but neither of those are true and both are overly
simplistic. I can accept orthodox Darwinian evolution with absolutely no
theological hangup whatsoever and just take comfort like Collins that
“somehow” God directed it for His purposes. However I don’t think this
explanation best fits the data. I don’t base this on any theological
argument but on objective secular science. For instance, Gould himself
didn’t accept strict Darwinian evolution and we have punk eek today as a
result. Gould’s points about the stairstep fossil record predominantly
reflecting stasis punctuated with sudden change are very valid in my humble
non-scientist opinion and I think this deserves accommodation.
And I think many on this list strongly oppose the concept of the generic
design inference posited by ID and go to great lengths and hermeneutical
gymnastics to erase that from the testimony of scripture even though many
secular scientists who are themselves witnesses of the scripture’s truth in
this matter. I have managed to extract, albeit under duress, concessions
from a few key thought leaders on this list after marathon exchanges a basic
affirmation that the fine tuning of the physical universe and the nebulous
natural law mechanism that guides evolution represent a token proxy of God’s
design in creation, but that has to be heavily caveated to not be too
scientific or the DI flavor of design or otherwise they will take it all
back.
As a result, I sense a tendency to overreact to ID and discard and discredit
many of their general and more basic premises which are still valid and even
create a theology for it, and then go to the opposite extreme of agreeing
with atheists on their definition of restrictive PN science that is
masqueraded as MN. I suggest that neither of these extremes are based on
scientific data or are grounded in scripture and I further suggest that
those that think they are possibly vulnerable to finding deities of their
own making themselves, a charge leveled at those that bring this criticism.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between these two extremes
and is not beholden to either of the two ideological stakeholders on offer,
ID or atheists, something like a Theistic Punk Eek. Why can’t we as
supposedly intellectually honest and objective Christians acknowledge this
possibility and avoid this either/or faulty dilemma? Why can’t we give ID a
little credit for some of their valid observations (which I have also
managed to extract from some under duress) and also admit that some of the
atheist’s positions on science are way too naturalistic in light of what the
scriptures teach about natural revelation (also extracted under duress)?
Maybe I am just naïve but from all that I have learned from everything I
have experienced throughout my entire Christian life, this seems to me to be
the most honest and accurate analysis of the situation. Granted this is a
layman’s opinion but I think that may give me a little objectivity that
might be underrepresented on the list otherwise. However this will be my
last parting attempt to address this since I think both sides have said all
that can be said productively.
Thanks again to all involved for all the sparring to date. I appreciate your
virtual fellowship.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of dawsonzhu@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:56 PM
To: john_walley@yahoo.com; randyisaac@comcast.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence
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.
>>
Some people recognize the value of adaptive systems. Rather than build one
system for each problem, build a single machine that can more or less manage
all of the problems it encounters. I reckon NASA probably spends a lot of
time on that since you cannot ask for a rocket every day when a part fails.
Such systems are robust, able to survive when crippled. Sometimes, it is
amazing how well thought out a well design system is.
What about the immunity system. That is a "random" library that your own
body uses every time a pathogen enters your system. To find an antibody,
your own system _select_ an amino acid sequence for the variable region of
the structure. That in turn, nabs the offending protein, sends your system
into red alert, and brings in the bouncers. That is an adaptive system.
I find it strange that we view immunity as the "good" adaptation yet
evolution is always the "evil" one.
By Grace we proceed,
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: 'Randy Isaac' <randyisaac@comcast.net>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:35 am
Subject: RE: [asa] Random and natural vs intelligence
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: <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [
<mailto: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: <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> 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
_____
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
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 20:42:12 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 06 2007 - 20:42:12 EST