Re: [asa] Has a Christian Evolutionist written this yet?

Check out Simon Conway Morris, "Life's Solution" for a teleological TE
perspective based on convergent evolution: (
http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Solution-Inevitable-Humans-Universe/dp/0521603250/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197985106&sr=8-1
)

Also, I think Cardinal Cristoph Scoenborn's new book "Chance or Purpose:
discusses similar themes:
http://www.amazon.com/Chance-Purpose-Creation-Evolution-Rational/dp/1586172123/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197985278&sr=1-1

On Dec 17, 2007 10:27 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This in my opinion is beginning to get at the real core of the disconnect
> on
> science and faith in the church today and I welcome Bernie's exploration
> into this topic.
>
> As we have hashed out and tried to capture on this list many times before,
> the mechanism of evolution without some kind of unknown guidance is a an
> appeal to faith tantamount to multiverses and just as intellectually
> dishonest.
>
> Everybody agrees that the observed mechanisms of evolution today are wide
> and varied and include everything from chromosome fusion to endosymbiosis
> to
> lateral gene transfer to viral infection of sex cells to single point
> mutations and all together they contribute to "endless forms most
> beautiful".
>
> Further the long line of extinct species show that there was definitely a
> component of randomness in this entire process that were more fortunate
> for
> some rather than others.
>
> However no one rationally believes that all this came about a-theistically
> without some kind of mysterious process that somehow underpins it all and
> was the origin of the information and the language that translates it as
> well as the near miraculous processes that guide it still today. From the
> other thread, there are many different interpretations on who this
> embedded
> mysterious force is attributed to and it ranges from the special
> intervention of YEC, OEC and ID to divinely created naturalistic process
> of
> TE to some other natural intelligence like Davies to just a lucky
> materialistic improbability like Dawkins.
>
> But the one thing in common between all these positions is that they all
> acknowledge that the YEC James Perloff's argument of a "tornado in a
> junkyard" is valid and therefore evolution has to be supplemented with
> magical properties that evolved stepwise to account for the miraculous
> improbabilities it overcame. And even if we accept complete randomness in
> the variation and natural selection to explain the survival of the
> fittest,
> the YEC's critique of that not explaining "arrival of the fittest" remains
> valid as well.
>
> Endowing evolution with these magical properties is fine as long as we are
> honest about them and their existence. Even today as a simple example
> would
> the mechanism of metabolism in the cell. How do those molecules know how
> to
> traverse the entire distances of the cell and find each other and assemble
> just so at just the right location on the rapid timebase that they do?
> This
> is just a naïve simplistic example that doesn't scratch the surface of the
> true complexity in the cell and even Dawkins concedes life is very
> improbable, but he offsets that improbability to appealing to some set of
> magic properties that are built in to evolution and even though they are
> unknown he knows they were not from God.
>
> Where ID's fail in their attempt to influence the culture for good is that
> they rightly see the dishonesty in Dawkins position but they wrongly
> suggest
> that the correct alternative is special creation. The true solution to
> this
> problem (besides the theological baggage) is a synthesis of the valid
> challenges to atheistic naturalism that ID has surfaced with the observed
> processes of natural evolution and leaving the placeholder of the unknown
> processes as a logical and rational deduction of the immanence of God.
>
>
> The term Christian Evolution adds nothing more than TE already denotes and
> it could be argued that it takes something away by excluding other
> religions
> that also believe in a creator. As I have mentioned on this list before, a
> friend of mine coined the term Bioanthropic Principle to refer to this
> "nature's helper" that we see in evolution that resists explanation when
> compared to the probabilities. I think this is a profound and even sublime
> term to describe this concept that is so often misunderstood and leads to
> so
> much unnecessary emotion and angst in this debate.
>
> If we made an attempt to use a qualifier on evolution such as this and
> OEC's
> and ID'ers didn't think that TE's were compromising by accepting the
> dishonest definition of Dawkins, then that would go a long wat to
> diffusing
> the tension between the two camps. The first step though is identifying
> this
> and making this distinction in the collective church mind. This is a meme
> that needs to be replicated.
>
> As far as the theodicy question, that is easily resolved with an
> understanding of the fall of Satan preceding the creation of the entire
> physical universe and of Rev 18 where this is declared by the "Lamb slain
> from the foundations of the world". Our entire existence is not for us but
> for God's quest of cosmic justice and to avenge Satan. That also explains
> why we see the endtimes played out with a test for the true believers who
> resist worshipping the beast even under financial and economic duress and
> persecution, even though the beast has been given control over all the
> world
> to make people worship him.
>
> He will see that it will be a hollow victory when all he can get to
> worship
> them are the ones whose worship is for sale are not valuable enough to
> them
> to suffer violence over and this will be the lesson that God intended him
> to
> learn and why he created the universe and us in the first place and then
> Satan will be judged after being shown the error of his ways. Not
> understanding this if the error of the YECs who insist Eden had to be
> perfect and no death before the fall but to TE's who recognize nature was
> red in tooth and claw from the beginning, all the imperfect design
> arguments
> are easy.
>
> Bernie, I hope you continue to develop this line of thought and help draw
> this distinction about the differing definitions of evolution out there
> and
> the theodicy question as well. I think the time is right in the church and
> I
> share your evangelistic zeal to get it to them.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:03 PM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: [asa] Has a Christian Evolutionist written this yet?
>
> Hi all-
>
> Does anyone know of a book that someone has written that basically
> explains that God uses evolution as his design means? I mean, that God
> is actively engaged in messing with DNA code as a programmer writing
> computer code, not simply just starting it all off at the big bang, as
> Howard Van Till would say. I'm thinking of a combination of Intelligent
> Design (not ID as it is now) with Evolution. Basically, the conclusion
> is drawn from:
>
> 1. Evolution is too unlikely as to have happened naturally (ex.
> anthropic principle & origin of life mysteries).
> 2. Genome evidence shows evolution happened (ex. pseudogenes).
> 3. Therefore, evolution happened supernaturally.
>
> I would call the position "Christian Evolution," and a follower a
> "Christian Evolutionist." It is the Christian faith combined with
> evolution... I hope that isn't syncretistic.
>
> Atheists may say that "evolution is an unguided process of creating
> more complex life-forms from simpler," but the Christian Evolutionist
> can say it is the "guided" process. Then a tough question would be "if
> God is guiding it, then why is there so much disease and bad genes?"
> Good one.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 18 08:46:06 2007