Re: [asa] Results of Cameron's Survey

I am prepared to consider to consider a modification of #2 in the
direction of #3. I do not see any special intervention by God at the
reptile-mammal transition, or at the creation of life. However, God did
guide the whole process by setting up a universe that involved
constraints on what could happen, not only by establishing "laws of
nature" in the sense of the field theories of quantum mechanics and
general relativity and the fine tuning of fundamental constants, for
example, but also endowing the universe with certain qualities, e.g. one
with three spatial dimensions of such a nature so that geometrical
constraints would have implications for protein folding. The question of
origins should not be separated from the question of development, with
the latter involving questions of emergence.
Don N

Gregory Arago wrote:
>
> In asking people on this list to address “the capability of Darwinian
> processes,” Cameron Wybrow proposed the following survey question to ASA:
>
>
>
> “Let us take a look at three broad speculative explanations for the
> reptile-mammal transition:
>
> 1. Reptiles became mammals by purely stochastic processes; there was
> no design in the appearance of any mutation, and God did not lift a
> pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature) during the whole
> process.
>
> 2. Reptiles became mammals by a deterministic, front-loaded
> process; there was inbuilt design regarding at least the main thrust
> of the process, but beyond inserting that inbuilt design (at the
> beginning of life, or perhaps even at the beginning of the universe),
> God did not lift a pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature)
> during the whole process.
>
> 3. God (or space aliens, if you prefer) steered the alterations of the
> genomes of reptiles until they became mammals, actually causing nature
> to produce *what it otherwise would never have produced*. (Note that
> this answer does not entirely exclude elements of stochastic and
> deterministic processes, but subordinates them to, or coordinates them
> with, a guiding hand, and is not in the slightest degree embarrassed
> to use the word "guidance".)
>
>
>
> Cameron's survey question to ASA, for which this thread is compiling
> the results: "Which of the three scenarios above is the one that -- in
> your own personal view -- *actually happened*?"”
>
>
>
> Responses to this question thus far:
>
> Schwarzwald: "I'd have to answer #2 or #3"
>
>
>
> Dave Wallace: "place me in category 3."
>
>
>
> Cameron: "I opt for #2 or #3."
>
>
>
> Gregory: #2 or #3.
>
>
>
> Terry added #4: "4. God steered the alterations of the genomes of
> reptiles until they became mammals in a way that is indistinguishable
> from it occurring via purely stochastic processes."
>
>
>
> George Murphy: “You can put me down with Terry's #4. (Or, if only the
> 3 answers given originally are allowed, as is usually the case with
> standardized tests, I'll take #3 "under protest.") I would not
> absolutely rule out the idea of front-loading of design (#2)…”
>
>
>
> Don Winterstein: “As a gardener I choose the garden model, which would
> be close to #3.”
>
>
>
> David Campbell: “4 is rather closer to the mark.”
>
>
>
> *What about the other ASAers?! (e.g. Iain Strachan, who contributed
> to the thread)*
>
>
>
> ~
>
> My interpretation of the results so far, using quotations:
>
>
>
> David Campbell however noted: “Another problem in interpreting my
> position is that I often try to note a range of viable possibilities,
> rather than specifically my view.”
>
>
>
> In this thread, Cameron was specifically asking for a ‘personal view.’
>
>
>
> David Campbell continued in a later post, more specifically with his
> view:
>
> “My position would indeed be compatible with much of the more
> theoretical ID, but it is incompatible with insisting on attacking
> evolution.”
>
>
>
> David C. continued:
>
> “My own position is that everything is determined according to God's
> design. However, I see neither reason to expect God to not use
> physical laws in the reptile-mammal transition nor evidence that He
> didn't. As far as I can tell, God steered the process using natural laws.”
>
>
>
> To which Cameron responded, saying that David C. employs “a blurry
> distinction between "guided" and "natural" events, and it is the
> blurring of that distinction which makes your position possible.”
>
>
>
> Thus, in responding to the idea that ‘God steers’ nature, Bill Powers
> asked to Terry Gray: “Your fourth option is just a subset of the
> third. Is it not?”
>
>
>
> Terry has not yet responded.
>
>
>
> Cameron has made clear that some TEs are advocating a
> #3-that-looks-like-#1 scenario, but that “Darwin did not envision [a]
> special #3-that-looks-like-#1.” Thus, the implication is that those
> TEs are not ‘Darwinists’ in a strict sense of the term. The TEs may
> agree with this in principle, but they are apparently not doing much
> to distance themselves from certain aspects of Darwin’s ideas and/or
> his contribution to science, perhaps because, as Cameron suggested,
> they don’t want to appear as being ‘anti-evolutionary’ (read:
> ‘creationists’) in America. In fact, however, they could come out
> strongly against *certain aspects* of Darwinian evolution, which it
> seems is what Cameron is hinting at, and as IDs (such as Denton and
> Behe) are successfully doing, without being called ‘anti-evolutionary.’
>
>
>
> One of Cameron’s main points is that “Darwinism (as opposed to simply
> "evolution")…cannot be compatible with orthodox theology.” TEs either
> don’t seem to say much about this or their definition of ‘Darwinism’
> is different than Cameron’s, thus allowing for even the possibility of
> a Christian Darwinism (!), which Cameron and myself and many others on
> this list believe is a false (read: impossible) pair.
>
>
>
> Cameron also wrote: “"Christian Marxism" is nonsense, though
> "Christian socialism" is not. Similarly, "Theistic Darwinism" is
> nonsense, though "theistic evolution" is not.”
>
>
>
> Earlier, in the preceding thread ‘The term Darwinism’ from which
> Cameron’s survey branched off, he made clear his position:
>
> “More generally, "theistic evolution" is not an objectionable term for
> me. Nor would it be an objectionable term for ID advocates such as
> Michael Behe or Denyse O'Leary, were it not for the fact that many TEs
> insist on full-blown *Darwinian* evolution as an irrefutable fact of
> science, and the fact that many TEs rule out design detection in
> principle.” – Cameron
>
>
>
> So, is accepting position #3 or #4 consistent with *not* insisting on
> “full-blown *Darwinian* evolution”?
>
>
>
> Further, Cameron clarified his question as follows:
>
> “The question is, I repeat: *Does God need to do anything other than
> his ordinary divine action (which sustains nature) in order for
> macroevolution to occur?* If your answer is "No", you should be
> picking #1 or #2. If your answer is "Yes", you should be picking #3.”
>
>
>
> “If both ID and TE people in fact believe that evolution is a *guided*
> process, and that it would not happen under the "ordinary" action of
> God, without some extraordinary prompting, then it is important to
> establish that.” – Cameron
>
>
>
> Has Cameron’s survey at least established that?
>
>
>
> Gregory
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 3 19:20:36 2009