DT: > The problem that many of us have is that this does not
conform to God's revelation about what he has done.>
BH: > Fair enough to this point -- so long as you recognize that
other Christians may come to different conclusions.>
Sure. Engaging in debate is partly to clarify ideas, partly
to persuade others, and partly to correct my own errors. I have
changed my own views on many topics over the years, so I have no
problems with the thought that Christians can come to different
conclusions.
DT: > nor does it satisfy our scientific judgments as to the
>significance of the evidence.>
BH: > But when you add the above, I have to wonder, "Is he adding
this because he has genuine problems with the science involved,
or because he wants something to bolster what his faith and his
reading of the Scriptures tell him?" >
Do any of us know our own motives properly? I am coming
from the perspective that all truth belongs to God, and there are
ultimately no conflicts between the different disciplines of
knowledge. Because my knowledge of these disciplines is
imperfect, I am sure I don't get the balance exactly right.
DT: > I would suggest that "Darwinian design" has an appropriate
>analogy with artificial selection ...>
BH: > OK. You're talking about various randomization approaches
to design, including genetic algorithms. ... I'm not sure the
analogy with artificial selection is a good one. Genetic
algorithms are used to perform very complex optimizations on
multimodal surfaces with beaucoups constraints. Sometimes
suboptimal solutions are known, and frequently genetic algorithms
break into entirely different regions in the parameter space,
giving unexpected improvements. You really do get beneficial
"mutations".>
My experience with genetic algorithms is limited. I did
write a program once using GAs - exploiting their ability to
handle incomplete information and partial matches between a
template and a data set. In reading around the subject then, I
came to the conclusion that GA programs that lacked some
intelligent "guidelines" coming from the programmer were not
particularly successful (analogous to natural selection). On the
other hand, those that had a significant design input (analogous
to artificial selection) at least showed promise.
BH: > It should be added (emphatically) that in no way do I
believe the genetic algorithm or other optimization algorithm is
actually "doing" the design. It's just serving as an assistant
to the engineer in locating points in the design space which
satisfy the constraints and optimality conditions. By virtue of
his having specified the constraints and the design criteria, and
perhaps (likely in my experience) having chosen a suitable point
from which to initiate the search, I would attribute the design
to the engineer.>
Agreed. Your last sentence in this paragraph appears to me
to correspond to my last sentence in the previous para.
BH: >It seems to me that in order to reconcile our
interpretations with known data from astronomy, geology and
biology, we ought at least to consider other interpretations of
Scripture. Such interpretations must of course endeavour to
preserve what the Scriptures are telling us.
Agreed.
BH: > If you consider the Scriptures to be a textbook on
astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology, you would be unwilling
to deviate from the young-earth orthodoxy.>
This is probably true. You might recall that my first
contribution on this Reflector a few months ago was on the
language of appearance in the Bible, and its being non-
scientific. Speaking for myself, I am not wishing to promote a
view of the Scriptures which make it a textbook for astronomy,
etc.
>BH: >> However, suppose from God's point of view the creation
was accomplished when He issued the commands. In this scheme
God's creative role would comprise the design of nature and the
setting in motion of the various processes which would carry out
his will.>>
BH: > I think Heb 11:3 supports my position quite well. "Prepared
by the _word_ of God (there He is again, orchestrating everything
with His word) so that what is seen was not made out of what is
visible". It doesn't say _when_ creation took place. From God's
point of view, it may well have been done when He issued the
commands to His exquisitely balanced nature to bring about
everything He had in mind to be made (not created -- that had
already happened)>
The point is not WHEN creation took place, but WHAT was
created: that which is seen. We turn to Genesis 1 to find what
is seen and we find the earth, the sun, the stars, the plants,
animals, man. Then we read about creation being finished. The
intention to create is not the act of creation. The design
concept is not the same as the designed object. There is a
historical dimension here to which we must do justice.
BH: > From a design perspective, we humans sometimes say the same
thing. When is a Pierre Cardin design "created"? Surely not
when it's cut and stitched together at the clothing factory.
Usually by creation in that sense we mean Cardin's process of
converting a gleam in his eye into the design for an article of
clothing.>
Is this how garments are designed? Concepts are developed
in drawings, then explored and finalised using tailor's dummies.
A design would be said to exist (created) when a sample garment
can be presented to others. The manufacturing process is
analogous to copying.
BH: > Part of the problem comes from the fact that evolution
theorists have redefined evolution as variations in the
distribution of alleles in a population from generation
to generation. Defined this way evolution is an established fact
which can be demonstrated in lab work and field work. "But," you
may say, "all they can demonstrate that way is microevolution."
True. But no one has yet been able to demonstrate that there are
any barriers between microevolution and macroevolution.>
Phil Johnson sees more clearly than these evolution
theorists that the word "evolution" is used in a great variety
of ways. I would suggest that the redefinition of evolution you
mention leads to confusion rather than clarity.
BH: > The fossil record is a piece of evidence that evolutionists
bring up to support macroevolution. Given the fact of
microevolution, the absence of barriers and the fossil record,
they believe they have a sound case. But creationists point to
the gaps in the fossil record and say, "Look, there's the proof
of the barriers staring you in the face." Or they point to the
gaps between extant life forms and say the same thing. I don't
think that examining historical evidence is going to
resolve the dispute.>
It will not resolve it - but it is surely relevant. For
example, it tells us that if evolution happened, it did not
happen in the way neoDarwinians envisage.
BH: > That's why Art Battson's plea that evolution researchers
should look for the barriers is so appropriate. If a theoretical
barrier can be found, you can prove your point. But you need to
do some real research.>
This takes us back, if I am not mistaken, to the recent
"Limits to variation" exchange.
BH: > The reason evolutionism is bad is that it is a philosophy
of men that tries to do away with the need for the transcendant
-- in particular it tries to do away with the need for Jesus
Christ. I would rather lead a man to Christ and find out that
he remained an evolutionist to the end of his days than to
disabuse him of a false "faith" in evolution and never have led
him to Christ.>
When presented in these terms, I have to agree.
BH: > When people become Christians, the Lord reorders their
priorities, including their beliefs about things like evolution.
So, logically, (and Scripturally) what we need to do first with
unbelievers is lead them to Christ.>
When the Lord Jesus sent his disciples out he commanded them
to make disciples: baptising them and teaching them. A disciple
is someone accepting discipline: of conduct, of the heart, of the
mind. I think that the issues we are debating relate to the
question: what is the Christian mind? Are we renewed in our
thinking? I am certainly happy to debate these issues with
unbelievers, but I would present things in the same way. As you
say, our prime goal is to point them to Christ.
BH: > It seems to me that the church can address fundamental
issues (the need to know Jesus Christ, the need to trust in his
finished work on the cross, the need to obey the will of God,...)
without getting sidetracked into issues of how scientific data
is interpreted. Of course the church ought to attack misplaced
science.>
The issue is not primarily "how scientifc data is
interpreted". The problem in our culture is that naturalism is
claiming all the intellectual high ground - nature is all there
is. This is part of our culture. It is now part of what "makes
people tick". The gospel is drained of meaning within this
culture - we don't need redemption!
Apologies for the length - but thanks for the discussion. It's
made me think!
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***