> It might be worth noting S.J. Gould's "Full House" monograph (I think it
> comes out a bit in "Wonderful Life" as well). With respect to the apparent
> increasing complexity that evolutionary history seems to demonstrate, he
> points out that there is a wall of minimal complexity and there is only one
> direction to move from that wall. So one "expects" to see an increase of
> complexity in the course of history. Like the absence of .400 hitters,
> increasing complexity is simply a matter of statistics.
As a readable and interesting book, this is THE title I would
recommend to anyone struggling with the "correct" answer in Art's
multi-choice question. Gould shows that "progression" is not part of
evolutionary theory - although people have often read progression
into the record of past life on earth. According to Gould, life is
not evolving in any direction, although it has to move away from the
wall of minimum complexity if it is to evolve at all!
> Of course, none of this appeal to statistics and lack of direction or
> spontaneous order building implies that God is not in control of the
> process or not accomplishing his creative purposes through it. It's
> another example of His "using" ordinary means to accomplish his will.
This is the paragraph where I wish to differ with Terry.
Philosophically, I regard this as a defensible view. God is in
control of the processes of nature and working out his purposes using
these means. However, whilst this is a theistic position, is it a
Christian position? By Christian, I mean one which draws revelatrion
from the Bible. Genesis 1 reveals God creating animals and
plants according to his purpose. Supremely, God creates man. I
think we can draw from this the conclusion that whatever means God
used, it was his purpose to bring the different kinds of plants, and
the different kinds of animals, and mankind, into existence. This is
where there is a tension with evolutionary theory. There is no
'direction' to evolutionary change. There is no 'progress'. A
Creator using Darwinian evolution as the chosen means can have no
confidence that the outcomes will be as planned. The "tools" do not
match up to the "design goals".
As you know, Gould makes something of this. Play the "tape" of life
again, and it would be most unlikely that man would emerge (he says).
Any skilled workman will pick appropriate tools to do the job. The
problem that I find with Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism
is that the Creator appears to be working with incredibly blunt tools
- so much so that the outcomes are perceived as a matter of
contingency by onlookers.
This is why I cannot get excited about the TE position.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.