Re: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

I guess I'm a bit surprised, in light of your expansive view of
Creation, that you feel that God must conduct every increment of human
evolution. Does that really seem necessary, or just feel right? I ask
that because it seems to me that God's objectives in creating an
evolving creation are more likely to ultimately transcend the physical,
given that the trajectory of evolution has - at the present state of
"sophistication" - brought into play things like abstraction,
communication, relationships and interactions that even in our very
limited plane of existence transcend the mere physical.

Also, (OK, this is really nitpicking), aren't the gaps you refer to
still really the [immense] spaces between the findings of science, since
an implied integrity of "God's infinite design" presumeably would not
accommodate any gaps?

JimA [Friend of ASA]

mlucid@aol.com wrote:

> I'm not sure I follow all your specific objections about the gap
> argument, but I do understand the frustration of not knowing all the
> criteria for the various existing paradigms, not to mention actually
> getting corralled into one of them.
>
> For brevity's sake I can can say with confidence for myself that God
> is intimately conducting every increment of human evolution and that
> natural selection and epigenetics are excellent if significantly
> insufficient indicators of the nature of God's hand in the matter.
>
> I guess personally I find it easier to argue that science is in the
> Gaps of God's infinite design.
>
> -Mike (Friend of ASA)
>
>
>
>
> From: IW <iaincw@hushmail.com <mailto:iaincw@hushmail.com>>
>
>On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:02:25 +0900 PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com <mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 3, 2007 11:25 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
>
>
>
>>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>I am with Bernie I think. Before I joined this list several years
>
>ago I did not even know what the gap theory was or what half the
>
>acronyms here meant. I have no issue with accepting evolution and
>
>the evolutionary process. However....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Of course, we can always invoke the guiding hand of God but to\
>
>>replace
>
>>our ignorance with an appeal to God runs the risk of a gap
>
>>argument.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Why is the assumption that invoking God's guiding hand is utilized
>
>
>
>to explain something we are ignorant on? I do not argue original
>
>
>
>sin to explain humanities depravity because outside religion I can
>
>
>
>find no decent explanation for that depravity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>If one wants to argue that suggesting God was involved and remains
>
>
>
>involved in his creation at all times is a "Gap argument" then why
>
>
>
>cannot the same accusation be leveled at every believer on this
>
>
>
>list? Why are we believers at all - surely thats just a human
>
>
>
>weakness to assign to a deity that which we cannot
>
>
>
>define/explain/handle?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>If we can be "unscientific" enough to believe in a deity which
>
>
>
>cannot be proven through the scientific method then what difference
>
>
>
>is that between those who see God intimately involved with his
>
>
>
>creation at all times.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I understand that one does not want to simply assume "God did it"
>
>
>
>when we run into a moment of ignorance on a topic in science. I
>
>
>
>agree that when we get stuck on some point of evolution that we
>
>
>
>cannot just turn around and say, "Well at this point God did x and
>
>
>
>now we move on to Y which we can scientifically explain".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>But I do not see that as the same thing as arguing that God is or
>
>
>
>could be intimately involved in his creation prodding and poking
>
>
>
>until today. Why should he not? In fact, based on scripture I would
>
>
>
>argue that if God is not intimately involved then there is no God
>
>
>
>at all. The bible shows a God who cares and is present at all time -
>
>
>
> his work is never finished. And intimate involvement does not
>
>
>
>proscribe the idea that God may have been fiddling in his
>
>
>
>evolutionary driven creation since the beginning until now. Can we
>
>
>
>prove that? No - no more than I can prove God''s existence or
>
>
>
>Christ's resurrection.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>What are miracles if not direct interventions in the established
>
>
>
>system of things?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Is it necessary that God guided evolution?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Actually, yes - in the sense I am thinking. If not then I would
>
>
>
>argue we are theists not Christians. I think the bible is clear
>
>
>
>that God did not just create and then stand back to watch us sink
>
>
>
>or swim. If God is active in the lives of Christians today -
>
>
>
>guiding them and acting on their lives I fail to see how he would
>
>
>
>bizarrely be absent from his other forms of creation. What, God is
>
>
>
>only half involved? Only works part time?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Personally, I
>
>
>
>>see nothing wrong with accepting that God set it all in motion a
>
>
>
>>long
>
>
>
>>time ago. What does it mean for God to 'guide evolution'?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The same thing it means when we say God created the heavens and the
>
>
>
>earth. The same thing we mean when we say Christ rose from the
>
>
>
>dead. The same thing we mean when we say God works in our lives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail
> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 6 09:14:41 2007