> The argument from design tries to prove God's reality by
> examining the universe. In the form given to it today by
> those naming themselves "creation scientists" it earns the
> fury of genuine scientists. I shall show why most reputable
> thinkers consider it long dead and buried. But afterward I
> plan to demonstrate that recent developments make it very
> much alive, though not in any shape creation science would
> welcome.
> -- Leslie, J. (1985). "Modern Cosmology and the Creation of
> Life," in <Evolution and Creation>, Ed. E. McMullin,
> University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 91-120.
>OK, now for a controversial question. Is it inconsistent on the
>part of someone like Hugh Ross to be amazed at the fine tuning
>required for the precipitation of particles and force fields in
>the early moments of the Big Bang, the formation of stars and the
>evolution of galaxies, the spontaneous formation of carbon within
>those stars etc. etc. and then draw a line in the sand when it
>comes to chemical and biological evolution? This is what Leslie
>is saying, of course. The fine tuning that has been observed is
>a fine tuning of natural laws which allow for the evolution of
>intelligent observers according to those natural laws.
I think Hugh Ross has a valid position. All of the fine tuning in the
physics realm has been already been discoved while these so-called self
organizational principles of chemical and biological evolution have not. In
the absense of evidence, it's not inconsistent to say that God used design
for some aspects of His creation and a different type of Divine action for
other aspects. My guess is that Leslie would probably hold to some form of
what Francis Schaeffer called "the uniformity of natural causes in a closed
system". In other words, once the universe is set up, it prohibits any
further input from the designer. It is at best a deistic view. I think
anybody whose Christianity is worth its salt is probably going to hold to
some form of "a uniformity of natural causes in an OPEN system". In other
words, God is free to have input in the universe after the initial creation.
Howard VanTill's position (as best as I can recall) is similar to Leslie's
on a superficial level--the initial design of the universe gives rise to the
spontaneous generation of biomolecules and living organisms in a "gapless"
progression. However, he also holds a very strong view of God's providence
and governance--God is actively involved in upholding and sustaining the
universe throughout the process and in the present. He argues against
"intervention" after the initial creation by appealing to God's divine
economy of purpose. In other words, God knows how to perfectly engineer the
universe so further intervention is unnecessary.
However, His critics counter that restricting all of God's creative activity
to the initial design of the components limits God's freedom to create as He
sees fit. I personally think humans are poor judges of how God's divine
economy coexists in eternal harmony with His divine freedom. :-) From a
pure philosophical perspective, I cannot see that either side has the
advantage. Looking to the Bible, I personally think that there are some
good scriptural reasons for NOT restricting all of God's creative work to
the intrinsic design of the universe (especially when it comes to humans).
But I will also be humble enough to admit my interpretation could be wrong.
__________________________________________________________
"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