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

Random is used to mean several different things. The chapter by Keith
Miller and myself in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation lists three
categories. First, there are things that are best mathematically
modeled by a probabilistic function. Rolling dice, casting lots,
whether an atom will decay, whether a particular mutation will happen,
etc. are examples. Secondly, there is a looser usage to include other
things that are not humanly predictable, such as things with a
mathematical formula that is in some way intractible or unpredictable
(e.g., things that are chaotic in the technical mathematical sense-a
formula exist but the exact starting conditions must be known to
greater precision than is possible in the real world in order to make
a complete calculation) or things with no mathematical formula.
Examples in this category include long-term weather, the long-term
course of human history, and the long-term course of evolutionary
history. Thirdly, random is used to mean purposeless or undirected.
Here, the problem is at what level. The unaimed bowshot that killed
Ahab was fairly random as far as the archer was concerned. Similarly,
biological and paleobiological studies of evolution fail to discern an
ultimate goal above and beyond adequate response to selective
pressures to survive and reproduce. I selected examples for all three
categories that are expressly identified in Scripture as being under
God's direction and ones that directly relate to evolution. Thus, it
is merely a denial of God's providence to conclude that randomness in
any sense removes God from the picture.

Another example would be if I flip a coin to make a decision. Neither
the coin nor the laws of physics governing its behavior have any goals
for the process, but I do. No study of the coin or the physics would
enlighten you as to why I did it.

In general, TE approaches do not expect physical observations to
differ greatly from those expected in an atheistic version of realism.
 (One could be an atheist and reject science). TE would recognize the
possibility of God working in some manner that violates our current
understanding of the rules of nature, especially in the case of
Biblical miracles (though even there, violations of natural law are
more sparing than is sometimes realized), but would expect such events
to be rare, and generally sees no reason to expect them in the course
of evolution. Primarily the distinction is theological. In contrast,
antievolution tends to agree with the theological claims of atheistic
expectations and disagree about what physical patterns we should see.

Also, TE would disagree with Dawkins when he claims that providing a
physical explanation such as evolution provides a full account of all
features of interest.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.