The optimum perspective on the theory of evolution is that it is a provisionally accurate
human characterization of one way God has created and continues to create life on
Earth. It is provisional because we will forever be learning more and more about
how evolution really works (like epigenetics).
The proper position on intelligent design is that the universe is more intelligently
designed than humans will ever comprehend. I mean, it's by definition. We study
the intelligence of the structure of the universe. That's what we do. That's science.
Arguing against the intelligence of the design from the scientists perspective is like
arguing against the intelligence of physics.
It's the willful designer that gets us in trouble. It's the anthropomorphizing God that is
really stupid Assuming that we mortals could indicate how creation might actually
have been designed in a way that another mere human might understand is really kind
of blasphemous. Our transcendent God is the only one intelligent enough to know the
real miracle behind Creation.
What gets us (the scientist and the faithful) into trouble it is our false presumptions
of human adequacy to the ultimate task we are both pursuing with equally impudent
levels of arrogant zeal.
-Mikey (www.thegodofreason.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: dawsonzhu@aol.com; randyisaac@comcast.net; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 7:40 pm
Subject: [asa] Signing off this thread - Random and natural vs intelligence
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: 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
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out
free AOL Mail!
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.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 23:42:19 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 06 2007 - 23:42:19 EST