RE: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)

Rich,

Thanks for this clarification. This was a Eureka! moment for me.

I see now that as far as the mechanism of evolution goes you don't take any
issues with Dawkins and "random" is the wrong term to try to describe any
difference. This wasn't entirely clear to me before.

But it raises two more interesting questions for me:

1) If TE is in general agreement with Dawkins on the fully "random"
component of evolution as a mechanism, then where is the departure with him?
How do technically describe the difference in our positions if we fully
agree on evolution? Would it be accurate to say that this difference is
purely philosophical and can not be quantified by science at all?

2) As I mentioned above and also evidenced by the author of the review
article below, it is not altogether intuitive to IDers and novice TE's like
myself to equate fully "random" processes with God although I will concede
your scriptural reference does a great job of highlighting this.
"Randomness" seems like a convenient and logical demarcation between God and
naturalism and in fact that is the distinction Behe uses as a way to
challenge the creative powers of evolution in "Edge". How certain are we
from the science that this fully "random" process of Darwinian evolution is
sufficient to explain all the complexity of life? In other words, is the
objection to Behe's premise of an edge to the explanatory powers of
evolution rejected on scientific grounds, or merely philosophical grounds
because TE's don't like ID? Is it conceivable that Behe may be right and one
day the "random" component of evolution may no longer explain it? Is it
possible that one day some finely tuned epigenetic laws are discovered that
govern the genomes of life that will disprove randomness?

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:18 AM
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)

On Nov 20, 2007, at 5:38 AM, John Walley wrote:

Like many terms we use on this list that are potential mires, I will admit
that is possibly misleading but let me take the opportunity to ask the list
for clarification then as this has been a curious conundrum for me for some
time.

How do TE's technically and accurately differentiate guided evolution from
the a-theistic evolution of Dawkins? That is the distinction I was trying to
draw here.

John

We don't draw a distinction between them. But, we do it in the same way the
Bible does not draw a distinction between Providence and so-called "ordinary
events", even "random events". For example from 2 Chronicles 18:

27 Micaiah declared, "If you ever return safely, the LORD has not spoken
through me." Then he added, "Mark my words, all you people!"

Ahab Killed at Ramoth Gilead 28 So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king
of Judah went up to Ramoth Gilead. 29 The king of Israel said to
Jehoshaphat, "I will enter the battle in disguise, but you wear your royal
robes." So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle.

 30 Now the king of Aram had ordered his chariot commanders, "Do not fight
with anyone, small or great, except the king of Israel." 31 When the chariot
commanders saw Jehoshaphat, they thought, "This is the king of Israel." So
they turned to attack him, but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the LORD helped
him. God drew them away from him, 32 for when the chariot commanders saw
that he was not the king of Israel, they stopped pursuing him.

 33 But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between
the sections of his armor. The king told the chariot driver, "Wheel around
and get me out of the fighting. I've been wounded." 34 All day long the
battle raged, and the king of Israel propped himself up in his chariot
facing the Arameans until evening. Then at sunset he died.

So, by drawing a distinction and in essence denying God guides even random
events, the Intelligent Design Movement denies Scripture and the
providential care of God, just like Richard Dawkins. If Dawkins was there to
observe he would say God didn't do it because it was "random". The author of
Chronicles denies this.

But, IDM just doesn't get this. Note this review of Alister McGrath's
Dawkins Delusion
(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/november/35.79.html) and note how
the reviewer denies the providence of God:

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.

One could also say that the Bible doesn't explain how God uses random events
to His providential ends. Yet, I don't believe any IDM proponent would
accuse the Bible of abandoning theism for deism. Both the Bible and
evangelical TEs argue for the polar opposite of deism.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 21 08:07:16 2007