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

I don't know if I can answer your second question, but the forces and
fields of gravity, strong and weak forces, EM are unchanging in their
character, providing something more like context or ambience. That is
quite different from biochemical , genetic, etc. entities that are more
about processes and individuals and change. It seems to me quite
possible that God, having created the requisite soil and growing
conditions that are prerequisite to a garden, expects only that it be
and do as expected, and turns to focus instead on what and how things
grow in that prepared context.

The constant-sustaining script has God is involved in continuing to spin
the plates of soil and growing conditions, sustaining them in the
condition of reality, while assuming new roles in guiding the emergence
and growing of the garden's plants (sort of like Bonsai, perhaps).

I'm not sure this is how the script runs in reality, but as long as this
alternative can be reasonably posited, that makes the constant-guidance
model a little less than certain. That was my point. But that
alternative was apparently not particularly relevant to the point Bernie
was making, based on his later post.

As an afterthought, when God pauses to declare some aspect of Creation
"good", doesn't that sort of imply some sense of completion? If so, what
is complete? Or, perhaps I should ask, what sort of completion continues
to require sustaining in some way to continue to manifest its
"done-ness"? It does not seem likely to be making reference to any
evolutionary aspect of Creation because evolution is a continuing
dynamic, not having reached a static endpoint.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

>Isn't God just as involved in the ordinary working of the
>universe--gravity, strong force, weak force, electromagnetism--as in the
>biochemical, genetic, etc.? What kind of a situation are we in if the
>Almighty is involved only in revelation and the like?
>Dave (ASA)
>
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:08:06 -0700 Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
>writes:
>
>
>>Bernie,
>>
>>I remain puzzled at the confidence in 1.
>>Either God is capable beyond our imagination, or is not. Most of us
>>
>>would concur with "capable beyond our imagination".
>>So how then can we confidently conclude that a design and
>>implementation
>>by God of something as interestingly complex and fecund as the
>>universe
>>would necessarily require post-creation interventions to accomplish
>>its
>>creative intent?
>>In our limited human sphere, the concept of design and
>>implementation
>>usually measures success by whether the design as implemented
>>performs
>>as intended (from the outset). I confess to not really knowing for
>>sure
>>much about God. But maybe it's not too great a stretch to think that
>>God
>>might demand the same of His creative design, at least that portion
>>
>>which does not operate with ration and free will. Scripture does say
>>
>>that the Creation was "good". I assume that might include
>>"functionally
>>compliant with His design concept".
>>
>>If God is truly capable beyond our imagination, then we cannot just
>>
>>assert that something that seems "unlikely" just because it seems
>>absurdly improbable in the dim light of our very constrained and
>>myopic
>>ways of thinking and understanding.
>>
>>I'm not suggesting that you must concede to this point of view, but
>>I do
>>question the "improbability" premise as a foundation stone for
>>"Therefore, evolution happened supernaturally". That is the essence
>>of
>>the disputed "God of the gaps" explanations, which are diminished by
>>
>>every new discovery.
>>
>>I do not intend to say that God might not choose to subsequently
>>intervene or even sustain as you describe to guide the course of
>>evolution.
>>
>>But, that does seem to me to be at odds with what is ultimately
>>manifest
>>in man as free will. Why put in options in the first place if it is
>>
>>necessary to constrain or override them? That essentially suggests
>>that
>>biological nature requires some external guidance for it to proceed
>>in
>>the "right" direction (to achieve the design purpose), but the
>>vaster
>>non-biological part of creation works just fine as is. Further,
>>under
>>this picture, the biological evolutionary processes seem to require
>>
>>intervening "direction", while the consequent more more complex and
>>
>>unpredictable volitional functioning of man, operating with free
>>will,
>>does not. Something seems wrong with that picture. The basic
>>non-biological nature and human volition extrema do not require
>>"direction", while the sub-human biological part DOES require
>>"direction".
>>
>>I'd also comment that the design and functional power of evolution
>>and
>>natural selection is routinely pretty badly underestimated. This
>>amazing
>>functional coupling of slight susceptibility to mutation with
>>selective
>>attrition constantly pushes in the direction of increasing
>>sophistication. In elegant simplicity, it trims away (perhaps over
>>time
>>in some cases) anything that is even at a modest disadvantage with
>>respect to a newly altered configuration. Moreover, that one basic
>>collaborative process pushes toward increased sophistication in
>>every
>>form of biological entity, whatever its form or size or complexity,
>>
>>wherever it is found, and regardless of what constitutes the
>>specific
>>criteria of "success" or "benefit" or "fitness" in its particular
>>context - whatever improves its odd for surviving and thriving.
>>Isn't it
>>amazing that there is such a fundamental and natural process built
>>into
>>Creation whereby a vigilant, unrelenting, and dispassionate pruning
>>of
>>each growing and changing "evolutionary bush" favors anything that
>>brings survival and/or reproductive advantage (increased
>>sophistication)? Talk about a powerful and all-encompassing design
>>element (or is it a creative principle?)! Discovering the elegance
>>and
>>power of these processes take absolutely nothing away from the
>>Designer
>>of them! It is quite the contrary.
>>
>>I recognize that this sensibility will not rest easy with folks
>>whose
>>understanding of God includes a constant presence, support and
>>realization of all of Creation. It will be repulsively squirmy to
>>others
>>who see God breaking into the evolutionary scenario to bring about
>>"new"
>>creations, that increasingly are found to have more and more in
>>common
>>with the "old".
>>
>>The bottom line for me is that I just don't see the point of putting
>>an
>>evolutionary process into a dynamic Creation if in-course control
>>adjustments are required or desired. There are other reasons I will
>>
>>touch on in what follows.
>>
>>But perhaps more fundamentally, I am also troubled by all this focus
>>on
>>the physical processes of Creation, with understandings that God
>>still,
>>for some reason, elects to be directly involved in the physical
>>functioning of Creation. Does Scripture really teach that such an
>>involvement with basic natural processes is a main point of God's
>>interest in us and how WE operate? It seems to me that it is more
>>about
>>things that transcend the mere physical.
>>
>>In that light, it seems instead that God's interest in us is more
>>likely
>>to be more directed at the most sophisticated aspect (level) of our
>>
>>existence, the abilities to sense, think, abstract, communicate,
>>dream
>>of what has never been and make it happen. And more to the point, if
>>God
>>is interested in some sort of interaction with Creation, perhaps His
>>
>>interest would focus on that aspect of Creation that creates and
>>brings
>>into play new, UN-natural selection criteria to nuance the course of
>>His
>>Creation!
>>
>>Even from our severely constrained points of view, we can see value
>>in
>>the survival of certain individuals or groups that would otherwise
>>be
>>susceptible to the unthinking forces of attrition manifest in the
>>unsentient functions of our world. We increasingly work hard to
>>extend
>>the lives and heritages of prominent mathematicians, musicians and
>>other
>>artists, teachers, healers, and those gifted in many other areas of
>>
>>human endeavor. But the challenging charge of Christianity is to
>>expand
>>those definitions of value more yet, responding in a new way to the
>>
>>image of God imprinted and manifest in each one of us. That's not
>>about
>>the basic physical functioning of the world.
>>
>>That seems to me to be supported as well in Biblical revelation when
>>the
>>physical aspects of Creation were pronounced, "Good".
>>
>>Mankind in Creation essentially layers very distinctive new capacity
>>and
>>new opportunity over the functioning of the natural world. This new
>>
>>layer, spread over the rocks and seas and suns, and over the lower
>>life
>>forms, and even over the basically instinctive functionings of the
>>higher life forms, is not only capable of new dimensions of
>>creativity,
>>but even of nuancing of the functionings of all other natural
>>entities
>>to create new trajectories. It is relational and imaginative and
>>creative. I have to ask why God's participation and interest in the
>>
>>framework of the physical creation would be so compelling and
>>necessary,
>>when there are the alternatives of more sophisticated and more
>>transcendant matters of imagination, and hope, and redemption (in
>>its
>>many forms) and healing (in its many forms). These are new
>>possibilities
>>embodied in a new layer of Creation, bringing a new capacity to
>>significantly alter and even mitigate the mindless operations of the
>>
>>natural world by blunting its sharp corners and healing its
>>dispassionately imposed wounds. In the other direction, we also have
>>a
>>forward-looking capacity to actually move (probably very slowly!)
>>toward
>>a more Edenic future, with all the additional "new" that that will
>>in
>>time bring.
>>
>>That is the essence of why I surmise that God is not likely to be
>>particularly interested in or needed to muddle about in creative
>>interactions with a basic physical world construct. Instead, that
>>basic
>>sub-human world appears to me to be only a necessary foundary for
>>new
>>evolutionary capacities that are more of a transcendant character,
>>perhaps in some very small way more like something of God than is
>>the
>>physical world. That makes for a shaky predicate for "Therefore,
>>evolution happened supernaturally".
>>
>>Or so it seemeth to me. JimA
>>
>>
>>
>>Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>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 Wed Dec 19 00:40:51 2007