On 2/8/96, Stephen Jones wrote:
[..deleted material from previous conversations..]
SJ>Eddie I am well aware that 1 million to 1 chance can happen in the
>first second of spinning a roulette wheel. Those are normal rules of
>probability and God need have no direct choice in the matter except
>the normal laws. If you say God chose to let it happen is equivalent
>to saying it happened by chance. But if you mean something different
>from letting it happen by chance, then please distinguish it from
>this meaning.
I mean that God determined it, but it cannot be seen that God determined it
from a human perspective.
[..snipped discussion of probability of rolling a die]
>Eddie. Pr 16:33 is talking about things happening by chance on man's
>side but determined by God. I have no problem with this. But God is
>not limited to working through apparently random events.
I agree that God is not limited to acting ONLY through apparently random
events. My point was to emphasize that He is not limited FROM acting
through apparently random events. God can act in any way He pleases and we
shouldn't put him in either box. Unfortunately, many other Christian
critics of evolution seem to think that if an event is random, it couldn't
have been caused by God. They are in effect demanding that God can only
intervene in ways that humans can fully understand. I think God may have
acted in ways beyond our understanding in creation and we shouldn't be
surprised if an atheist scientist happens to call it random.
Just for the record let me say that, at the present time, I think that God
DID act in a way that produced a distinct discontinuity with the normal
"laws" of nature in at least 3 places (Gen. 1:1, 1:21, 1:27). This means
I'd probably be called a creationist by most TE's, but means I'm willing to
entertain enough evolution to be called a TE by most creationists.
[..snip..discussion of spontaneous protein generation..]
SJ>I have no problem with this. I never have. I accept Pr 16:33
>unreservedly. But it does not mean that God cannot also intervene
>directly and supernaturally and generate a functional protein.
Of course He could intervene directly. But maybe He didn't! :-) I have a
hard time finding a scriptural basis for the supernatural origin of a
protein--or for that matter of a unicellular organism. I don't know for
certain which means He used, but I think we should be open to both options.
SJ>You might be able to reconcile natural law probabilities with one
>miracle, but what if a whole series of miracles are needed to bring
>about the first self-replicating *system*? There is no such thing as
>a self-replicating molecule - there is only self-replicating molecular
>*systems*. There are many enzymes required to make the first
>self-replicating molecular system. It seems to me you can't keep
>claiming that *normal* natural laws of probability are operating at
>the same time you are claiming God is determining it. IOW I don't
>think you can extend Pr 16:33 to cover miracles. It is meant only to
>apply to normal natural laws of probability, applying in the rolling
>of normal dice.
The first replicating system isn't necessarily outside the bounds of natural
law--it's just an even more improbable event than the first functional
protein. However, as Brian and you have both pointed out, nearly anybody
(in the absence of some self-organizational principles) would probably call
this a miracle. But, one could maintain that it is still compatible with
natural law. I think maybe perhaps we have different concepts of "miracle".
My concepts as best as I can define them are:
natural law = predictable patterns of phenomenon resulting from the common
activities of God.
miracle = a unique phenomenon resulting from an uncommon activity of God.
Thus, there is not a sharp distinction between a natural law and a
miracle--there is a continuous progression from God's regular, normal
interactions in the world through unusual, lesser common actions to
extremely extraordinary actions (miracles). Using these definitions, I see
no conflict in claiming that the normal natural laws of probability are
operating while maintaining that God is determining the outcome. The laws
of probability are a result of God's action and the extremely improbable
event (=miracle) is the result of God's action. The difference is not in
the nature of the action, but in the frequency of the action. He chooses
when the extremely improbable event will occur according to his divine
purposes and when we see it, it inspires awe and wonder.
I don't like the term "supernatural intervention" because it tends to imply
that natural laws are not "supernatural" and that God's original design was
somehow deficient which required Him to "intervene". I don't think you
believe this, but the words definitely carry those connotations. I think
calling the miracle of creation an uncommon activity of God sheds most of
that negative baggage.
>>Eddie Gene Olmstead, Jr. Chemistry Department
> ^^^^
SJ>No doubt you have been told many times that you have a good middle
>name for a Prof. of Biochemistry! :-)
Thanks for the humor. I have been also told that I should be a Freudian
psychologist because of my initials--EGO. :-)
May God be gracious unto you in both ordinary and extraordinary ways. :-)
Eddie
__________________________________________________________
"Looking back, there's a thread of love and grace
Connecting each line and space I've known" -David Meece
==========================================================
Eddie Gene Olmstead, Jr. Chemistry Department
Asst. Professor of Chemistry Gordon College
Email: olmstead@gordonc.edu 255 Grapevine Road
Phone: (508) 927-2300 Ext. 4393 Wenham, MA 01984