Albion

It seems to me that the biggest difference between theistic evolutionists and ID creationists is that the former are content to accept the notion that God worked through natural processes to achieve whatever purpose he wanted to achieve whereas the latter insist that God had to leave clues. That latter positions strikes me as showing a feeling of insecurity. From what I gather from reading what Christians write about their faith, the whole point is that God doesn't beat people over the head with undeniable evidence saying "God was here," he does what he does and gives people free will to accept or reject it. ID creationists seem to be engaged in an attempt to show that God really did leave undeniable "God was here" messages all over creation. To me, that makes nonsense of the whole Christian position.

You're talking about evolution as if it was simply a bunch of total accidents, which isn't all that fair a characterisation of it in the first place. However, evolution is simply a process, which means that it's bound to be without purpose or pity (intention and feelings aren't characteristics of natural processes, evolution isn't alone there); I think that extrapolating to say that a purposeful and benign creator couldn't have used such a process is a false extrapolation.

Doubting Didymus

To put the sentiments of Geotheo and Albion (and myself) in a scentence:

If you belive that god could be involved in the creation of an individual using natural embryonic growth, then there is no contradiction in believing that god is involved in the creation of species using natural evolutionary processes.

In other words, from the mouth of two atheists and a theist who has examined his own beliefs so thorougly that he is having trouble with his own church; There is no contradiction between evolution and God.

To sum up my own argument:

Given that there is no contradiction, evolutionary mechanisms are the perfect method for a deity to create life. I know that if I were an all powerful being, evolution would be my choice.

What say you?

Vanderzyden

There is so much to say in response, DD. I am presently deciding which angle to take. A (shorter) response is forthcoming, which will primarily consist of my views regarding proper justification of belief.

One thing you should know: I realize the topic is theistic evolution. My opening response was meant to show the juxtaposition of two dichotomous views that are difficult to reconcile when worked out to their logical conclusions.

You should also realize that I know several theistic evolutionists. As such, I will draw upon my direct experience as well as what I have learned from specialists who study the phenomena we are considering.

I think that we should be ready for a very lengthy discussion.


John

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Vander,

Is your view that evolution is incompatable with God common or obligatory in your church or denomination?

Doubting Didymus

Okay, but please remember that I do not yet want to get technical. First, I want to establish whether or not it is possible or acceptable that god should use processes that work toward an end rather than simply bringing that end about.

I will not be comfortable getting into the actual evidence until we can establish at least the possibility that god uses evolution.

Vanderzyden

Rufus,

I am not a typical "Christian", nor am I a denominationalist. Suffice it to say that I follow Christ, and that the Bible is God's special revelation to mankind. I am convinced that we may also observe the general revelation that is inherent in the qualities of the universe.

Again, my view is not that modified trans-species common descent is incompatible with the Creator as I know him. "Evolution" has many meanings, as I have said. If the case could be made for "directed" evolution, with each step apparently leading to a particular end, then I think the term "theistic evolution" would make some sense.

However, there is no compatibility between the Creator of this finely-tuned universe and any talk of his use--or patience with--"random" or "accidental" events. Such a God is not worthy of worship.


John

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

GeoTheo

Vander
If God is "All-everything" (no need to list all the attributes, you get the point) Then how could anything be an accident?
I think evolutionary creation is due to the wisdom of God.
Case in point:
Many Scientists today are solving problems with "evolutionary algorythms" that mimic evolution.
I think evolution is perhaps the only way God could have created the type of world we have now. Organisms built out of clock work would perhaps not be able to adapt to changing environments, but through evolution can overcome problems as they are presented.
The problem solving capability of evolution is what these scientists are interested in.

Doubting Didymus

Quite, but evolution is really interesting in that is is a perfect marriage between random undirected forces and extremely non-random selective forces. It is the perfect non-deterministic creation method.

You are focusing too much on the random side of mutation, when the selection side is the perfect non-random governing influence. Surely you are not of the opinion that every movement of every atom is directly controlled by god, as that would negate free will. Evolution may contain a random element, but so too does free will. If I choose at random between typing the letter A or B next, then a random act has been performed that god was not directly in control of. No serious creator god could have a problem with some random factors being present in his universe.

Now to the question: is evolution random? The only answer is: no it bloody well isn't. Mutations may be random, but the process is inherently guided by non-random factors, whether you believe in god or not. Remembering that we have co-opted the evolutionary process to acheive our own ends in dogs and bananas, it should be clear that evolution is the most powerful method of design known to man. It is not accidental, nor is the random factor overbearing.

Your comments seem to suggest that, in my gramophone analogy above, you think god would prefer the gramophone that needs gods hand on the lever. Is it not more impressive for a creator to create a creation that sustains itself, rather than one that needs his intervention at every turn?

Vanderzyden

DD,

Perhaps this is the way to proceed with the argument. For now, I'll forgo my other considerations. Perhaps they will be required later.

No, God does not need to control every atom, but it is evident that he has intention. If he has intention at one level, say, the establishment of the universe, then why should we preclude him from having (equal levels of) intention in developing variations of biological life? Selection requires a Select-or. Who, or what, is doing the selecting? If it a process, instead of a person, what agent established the process?

Accidents are events that happen to go "right". An enormous number of tightly-linked, favorable events must have transpired in order to bring about our amazingly complex universe, including biological life. With such an immense number, the probability of it all working well together--naturally--is so low that it is effectively zero. This is true whether we consider the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or universal biological common descent.

All-else equal, efficiency and specification are more desirable than inefficiency and accidental happenings. Specification requires a designer, efficiency requires a processor. Presume that God has the qualities ascribed to him in the Bible, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and supreme goodness. You have admitted that God could be involved directly. If so, why would he not want to be involved to ensure exacting specifications and the most efficient processes? Given the characteristics I have just described of God, how is it that we could surmise that he would not play a direct, continuous role?

You say that evolution "is inherently guided by non-random factors". I have read much to the contrary. So please tell me what agent guides evolution. Remember, a process does not ultimately guide anything. Agents do.

Also, breeding (whether dogs or bananas) is not co-opted evolution. It is inter-species breeding, nothing more. Surely you are speaking of evolution as entailing trans-species or new-species development.

I know you are an atheist, DD. But please answer these questions:

1. Why would God want to create at all? If he would want to create, why wouldn't he want to have "his hand on the lever", even if it was a sustaining hand?

I can easily invert your last question (to which I would answer "no"):

2. Which would be more glorious, a loving God who cherishes his creation, or one who is indifferent and remote? Hint: compare this relationship with the relationships that you have experienced.


John

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

GeoTheo

The Young Earth creationist position on the breeding of domestic animals is just not true.
Dogs look different due to mutations not genetic variability already present in wolves.
If that were the case you would occasinally see wolves that looked like poodles or bassett hounds. You don't. Wolves can have allels but they clearly don't have as many as domestic dogs.
Go to a State fair some time and look at all the varieties of Chicken. These variations are not all from reorganization of genes. The genotype has been altered.