RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

Hi Moorad-

The way I see evolution (esp. biological evolution of common descent of man from ape-like creature) is that the process is pretty much proven by way of the fossil record and "DNA fossils" (pseudogenes) and the DNA evidence for a fused chromosome (from ape-like creature to man). Evolution as defined by "one animal changing over time into another." Since this scientific evidence can't honestly be ignored, it should be embraced. How it happens or how fast it happens is irrelevant. What is relevant is accepting the evidence that it actually happened. The mystery is still there in all the details.

Once you accept evolution of man from ape-like creature, there is no more major stumbling block. I think that is the crux of the issue, and there is ample evidence that evolution really happened in this area. If so, why reject the rest of evolution... that it all initially started from a big bang. Evolution sounds reasonable, but special creation (fiat) goes against the DNA and fossil evidence for hominids.

My opinion-

..Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:43 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

Hi Bernie,

The difficulty I see is that evolution is a synthetic science, that is, the integration of experimental sciences and history. The historical aspect is the most tenuous. I have published papers on the Big Bang; however, would I bet my life on it? Certainly, not. I agree with you that if one considers the Christian faith as a paradigm to help make sense of the whole of reality, then there is no better worldview than that provided by Scripture. One can make all the claims of evolution very plausible but that does not make evolution unavoidably true. The question in my mind is when and how do we acknowledge the notion of the mystery that we are stuck with and how large of an area of our inquiries are encompassed by that mystery?

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thu 8/7/2008 12:54 AM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

Hi Moorad-

  I think with evolution there is no such thing as a "first man" since all species blur in the grey zone. There is no such thing as a line between human and non-human... it happened very gradually. Nevertheless, here we find ourselves as sinful humans made in the image of God. Animals don't sin (even if bears and tigers do kill each other simply for territory, rape, etc.).

  As Denis Lamoureux says, Scripture reveals ancient science and history. If you want to accept it literally, you need to believe that the Earth is flat, as all those thought at the time Genesis was written. But if the point of Scripture is not to teach history or science, then maybe it is good for theology. Sinners need a savior- the theme of the Bible.

  The problem is trying to fit modern science into ancient science... it can't be done and won't be done. Better to accept it for what it is.

  Some ask me why I'm still a Christian if I can't take the Bible literally and inerrantly. My answer... there's no better "belief system," including atheism.

  More on human evolution:
  Lemoureux's example is the baby. When a baby is made, it gradually unfolds. God does not paste on ears, nose, eyes, etc. One may ask, when does the ear appear? Is there a time when there is no ear, then an ear? It is a blur... same with evolution of man from an ape-like creature. (I asked "when does the ear appear" but in Lemoureux's example he asks "when is it a baby",,, just wanted to be clear on that.)

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:26 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

I believe that God did set up the laws and the initial conditions of the physical universe. It may be, as you say, that evolution is part of that set-up. However, was there an original creation that "fell" and is now governed by the laws that we actually observe? This helps me reconcile such observations with Scripture.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Wed 8/6/2008 7:29 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

Here's an example I gave as a comment in the Friday ASA workshop on origins.

I work at a computer company. We design computer chips. We have a software program that can take a design specification as input, and automatically generate layout. The computer generates layout due to an algorithm designed by humans. Was the output design created naturally? Yes, as opposed to supernaturally. Was there a designer behind this? Not behind this specific layout design, but a designer did design the algorithm to handle this layout design and many others. (Side-note: Interestingly, the auto-layout generators use random seeds as part of their design algorithm.)

Evolution is like the automated program. God created the evolution process just as humans created this automated algorithm. Just as evolution can create something without outside influence (human intervention), evolution can also create without God's intervention... and apparently it has, judging by all the junk and copy mistakes in DNA (pseudogenes).

The messed-up DNA is not a result of sin from Adam, but a result of the design process that God used. And God's process of evolution is brilliant-- if anyone thinks otherwise, try thinking of an alternative, other than punting and resorting to fiat.

I think seeing the brilliance in God's design will prevent one from being sidetracked with other trivial nonsense, such as seeing a "Bible code" or arguing about which verse is at the center of the Bible. (Don't get upset by these words- I'm just having some fun, being blunt and opinionated!)

Gregory- I hope I'm clear, in no way does God = evolution, and the words are not interchangeable at all. That was a huge and major mistake trying to replace one with the other in sentences. Evolution is a means/process/system of design. Just like plants growing as a result of photosynthesis and that doesn't disregard God as Maker and Sustainer in any way.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:41 AM
To: j burg
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

Here is what Arthur Peacocke wrote, "I find the epic of evolution, from the 'Hot Big Bang' to Homo sapiens, an illumination of how the Creator God is and has been creating. Evolution enriches our insights into the nature and purposes of the divine creation -- its fecundity, variety, its ability to manifest an increase in complexity to the point where the physical stuff of the world acquires the (holistic) capacity to be self-conscious, to think (in 'mental' activity), to instantiate values and to relate to its Creator (in 'spiritual' activity). I regard God as creating in, with, and through the natural as unveiled by the sciences; hence I espouse a 'theistic naturalism.'" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_03.html

Is that not equating evolution as an agency to God?

Moorad

________________________________

From: j burg [mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 8/1/2008 10:41 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

On 7/31/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> I am going to say something right off the top of my head. I
> will take you post and just make some minor changes and it makes just as
> make sense, if not even more, than what you wrote.
> -------------------
>
> You know, God (evolution) doesn't just create good things. He (It) creates
> even more mutants, retards, etc. than He (it) does something better. So an
> example of something going downward (in behavior, thought, etc.) doesn't
> disprove the actions of God (evolution) in society.
>

I see where you are coming from. The above assumes "evolution" refers
to an agency, rather than a descriptor.

Let me try this one. Substitute "gravity"

> You know, gravity doesn't just create good things. Gravity creates
> even more acccidents, deaths, etc. than it does something better. So an
> example of something going downward doesn't
> disprove the actions of gravity in our everyday life.

Here I am using the word "gravity" as an agent.

So much of the dialog on this list seems to center on word
definitions. I think Bacon was the guy who once wrote that when two
learned people disagree, it is almost always over word definitions!

"Gravity" is, of course, not an agent; it is (apparently) just the
result of living in a universe where mass attracts mass. Which in turn
is the result of living in a curved universe. Which in turn ... .

jb

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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 7 10:41:09 2008