David wrote
>
>In the context of God's designs, Bill writes:
>"I hasten to add that I believe God's designs are intended to be
>so elegant that there will be no indications of "tinkering"
>anywhere. So my view does not imply that there are any points
>in nature that we could study to "catch God in the act" unless
>He chooses to be "caught". As Howard Van Till does, I tend to
>believe that the design is in the properties of entities in
>nature."
>
>This seems to me to advocate a model of "design-for-self-
>assembly" whereby complex structures emerge as a natural
>consequence of the constituents having the properties they were
>created with.
It doesn't look like self-assembly to me, though I readily admit an element
of faith is required to believe that God is active in nature. But Hebrews
11 tells us pretty plainly that we need faith to know God. (where by faith
I mean "trust in God" -- not some vague "faith is believin' in what ain't
so" copout)
>The observation I make in passing is that we have
>no empirical data to support this view. On the contrary, what
>we know of these properties suggests that self-assembly does not
>happen. eg: the coding of DNA cannot be explained in terms of
>certain amino acid sequences being "natural".
I don't think I should comment on this. I quite frankly don't have the
background. I hope Terry Gray or someone else who has both background and
opinions in this area will get involved.
>
>Bill continues:
>"In addition (perhaps Howard would agree, perhaps not) I suspect
>that complex systems theory says some things about how God may
>be continuously involved in nature, guiding its course, without
>His oversight being visible to the normal five senses. Complex
>systems exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions and
>disturbances. By knowing exactly where and when to perturb
>nature, an intelligent designer/overseer could maintain control
>over the direction of nature by means of infinitesimal
>perturbations."
>
>This is the real point of my response to Bill's post: is this
>point an addition, or should it be a "Conversely, ..."??
>It seems to me that these sentences are giving us a version of
>intervention which is effectively contradicts the "design-for-
>self-assembly" argument.
As I said above, _I_ had not construed my view as a
design-for-self-assembly view. One of my favorite Scripture passages is
Col 1:16,17, which ends with "And He is before all things, and in Him all
things hold together." To me that seems to say that the Lord is
continuously supervising nature -- it wouldn't function without His
continuous oversight. I believe the regularity we see when we study nature
is an aspect of His consistency and steadfastness. So I see it as an
addition.
>
>In Stephen's post to Bill (20th Jan), it was interesting to note
>him saying "Totally disagree" to the idea that "design is
>[embedded] in the properties of entities in nature", and "Agreed"
>to the idea that "God may be continuously involved in nature,
>guiding its course,..." Clearly, he sees a difference in these
>arguments as well as myself.
In my private response to Stephen (sent privately because I was still
thinking about what he said and wanted to get a bit farther in my thoughts
before I made a public fool of myself) I acknowledged that he had a point.
The claim that the design is "in" the properties is easily misconstrued.
What I was trying to convey is that I believe God has put a great deal of
creative effort into devising the minutest properties of the objects in
nature to make nature a mechanism that responds to His commands smoothly
and exactly in the way He wants it to. (Stephen, if I'm contradicting
anything I said in my private note to you, I'll be glad to try to clarify.
How's that for sticking my neck out?)
>
>But I want to put to Bill the thought that his view of God
>guiding the process of evolution would be anathema to
>evolutionary biologists.
Probably it would be to some. I think the evolutionary biologist who
concludes that God is not involved because the methods He uses show no
evidence of God is making a fundamental error. Just because you cannot
see, touch or measure something does not mean it doesn't exist. From end
to end the Bible stresses faith. Faith appears to be a fundamental
requirement for knowing God. He doesn't permit shortcuts like science.
>They would want to say to you: Without
>God's special oversight of guidance (as distinct from his general
>upholding of his creation), would the emergence of complex
>animals and plants be possible. That is, is there a genuinely
>natural explanation of origins or not? With the views Bill
>expresses, I think he would be disowned by the evolutionary
>biology community.
But that's okay because I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Seriously, I'm
not claiming that evolution is baloney. I'm simply saying that if it
occurs (and I believe it does, at least to some extent) that that in itself
does not prove anything about the existence or nonexistence of a Creator or
His activities. Remember Is 55:8 and 9: Our ways simply may not be
capable of seeing Him.
I wanted to return to another point you made. You said, "They would want
to say >>to you: Without God's special oversight of guidance (as distinct
from his >>general upholding of his creation)..."
_Is_ God's special oversight distinct from His general upholding of
creation? We human beings may want to make distinctions like that, but do
we know what we're talking about?
>
>I think also that Bill does not fit comfortably in the TE
>community - which, in my understanding of them, are committed to
>methodological naturalism. I do not see how you can have MN and
>God's special guidance of processes (albeit invisible).
No, I don't really fit comfortably in the TE community -- although some of
my best friends are TE's :-). I'm probably more of a progressive
creationist.
>
>I may have misunderstood Bill, in which case I am willing to be
>corrected. But from what I read in your post, it seems to me
>that you are advocating a form of continuous PC. Is this the
>case?
Probably. As I've said before, my position is simply that I don't reject
evolution.
>
>Intending to provide constructive feedback,
You did. Thanks
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)