DT >> Can a statement about undirected evolutionary change be
complementary to a statement about God's craftsmanship?>>
LH >> Many theistic evolutionists would say that the outcome of
every "chance" event is determined by God; if this is true, how
can evolution be "undirected"? Other TEs would rather say that
God interacts with his creation within the inherent freedom
offered by stochastic processes; again, evolution is not
"undirected.">>
I fully accept that chance events and stochastic processes
are determined by God, and I can understand that in some senses
these events can be said to be directed. However, the context
here is craftsmanship - and stochastic processes are not the best
way of carrying out any creative activity. Using the analogy of
human creativity (which seems legitimate, as we are made in God's
image), we emphasise manual and cognitive skills and recognise
that a human creator acts with deliberation. I can see
stochastic direction as "providence" but have not been able to
make the connection with "creation".
DT >> "Can a statement about adaptation to the environment be
complementary to a statement about intelligent design?">>
LH >> "Absolutely! Human engineers are just now getting the idea
of devices which can adapt themselves to their environment...">>
I would suggest that "Darwinian design" has an appropriate
analogy with artificial selection - which is properly understood
as an intelligent manipulation of innate variation within the
entity being selected. In the case of Darwinian design, man has
rather more control over the "gene pool" than in plant and animal
breeding. In all these cases, man determines what are desirable
characters. Furthermore, in Darwinian design, man (probably)
does not know WHY the selected character is good, only that it
works - by satisfying the criteria for acceptance. Intelligent
design understands why. I am suggesting then that (a) the
analogy with Darwinian design is not particularly helpful, and
(b) even allowing the analogy, the tension between adaptation
processes and intelligent design remains.
LH > "Consider these questions: "What is God's purpose, intent,
and providence -- and how does he accomplish it -- in his
governance of the weather? In the conception event which began
my life as a new, genetically unique human being? In the
formation of our sun, our moon, and the earth's geological
features? In the microevolutionary changes we observe in plants
and animals today?" There are good theological answers to these
questions, but very few good theologians write about them in a
scientifically informed way."
Regarding the weather, we know that God is in control and
that he has a purpose (hidden from us): Job 38:12,22-30,34-38.
Regarding life's conception, we know that God is in control:
Psalm 139:13-16. This is God's providence: upholding and
sustaining all things according to his own will. Our science is
but a description of these things (including stochastic
processes) - and descriptions are mute when it comes to
underlying purpose. Science alone will not lead us to a
purposeful universe. Nor will science inform us that the
original testimony of God's creation being "very good" (Genesis
1:31) must now be qualified. Because of Adam's sin, it was
"subjected to frustration" (Romans 8:20) and it is under "bondage
to decay" (8:21). For this knowledge, we need revelation.
From a BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE, two considerations stand out
in my mind (and I will be brief - there is always scope for
further discussion if needed!).
(a) The Scriptures consistently refer to creation as a finished,
completed act of God. (The TE position MUST eventually blur the
distinction between creation and providence - but these are not
blurred in the Scriptures).
(b) The proposed processes of evolutionary change (involving
mutations and natural selection) invoke features which belong to
the world subject to "bondage to decay". To associate such
mechanisms with God's creative activity is to darken his
character. It is effectively to say that God created a world
which carries the consequences of Adam's sin - and even
unbelievers find this thought unpalatable.
From a SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, Phil Johnson has much to say.
He points out that the evolutionary explanations of origins are
far from descriptions. His analysis focuses attention on the
role of naturalism in evolutionary theory.
I've probably covered far too much ground in this post, but
I feel as though I'm just scratching the surface! I know I've
not responded to all the points made - but I hope this feedback
addresses some key issues.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***