If, as Howard claims, God has "gifted" nature with properties which enable
it to produce the phenomena He wants simply by commanding it(Howard will I
hope forgive me for my very loose paraphrase of his view), it would seem
logical to build a variety of means into nature by which His commands could
be accomplished. From an engineering point of view, that's just robust
design.
When we take into account that God seems usually to prefer keeping his
actions hidden from casual observation, this makes even more sense. By
ensuring that the probabilities of desired outcomes are quite high, He can
reduce the reordering He performs to undetectible levels. Again, from an
engineering point of view, that's just elegant design: don't design
something you have to force with a sledge hammer when you can make it work
by issuing a simple command.
The creationist arguments against evolution based on probability on the
other hand seem to say that we ought to be able to detect God's actions by
observing discontinuities in the natural order. Somehow that seems to me
to contradict Hebrews 11:6, among other passages. God wants us to observe
His activity, but He requires that we believe in Him first.
Together with cumulative selection and nonlinear dynamics, I believe this
argument pretty well demolishes the creationist probability arguments.
Glenn also mentioned the weakness of Christian apologetics based on
probability arguments. I agree. It seems to me the strongest apologetics
-- outside of Scripture -- are to be found in the history -- from the first
century up to the present -- of God's dealings with His people: the
healings, the miracles, the spread of Christianity, the peace He gives
Christians in the midst of chaos. If our claim as Christians is that God
has a special concern for men, then our apologietics should reflect that.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)