> I have said before with respect to Gould's claim about replaying the tape
> that in my Calvinist understanding of things (which I fully believe is
> derived from scripture from Genesis to Revelation) that the outcome would
> be exactly the same, because God is fully in control of each contingent
> step.
This does not follow. The "rules" of Darwinian evolution, if they
are established by God as his creative mechanism, do not guarantee
that man will emerge. All we can say is that there is a statistical
probability that man will emerge - and as Gould has noted, this
probability is very, very small. Saying that God is in control does
not change this situation at all. If man were to emerge if God
were to set the tape running again, he would have changed the rules!
> Gould is wrong! He does not know that there is a God who governs
> the process, albeit not necessarily detectable to sinful man whose heart
> has been darkened by sin.
It seems to me that your "counter" to Gould is a faith statement and
not a science statement. Is this really the way to proceed?
> Many in modern evangelicalism, and presumably many on this list, would take
> exception to this viewpoint. However, in my opinion, this is the only way
> that a theistic evolution position can be Biblical.
I am fully with you in your conviction that God is fully in control
of all things. So this cannot be the reason why I am not attracted
to theistic evolution! I see myself in the tradition of Charles
Hodge, the Calvinist theologian, who objected to Darwinism because of
its implications for Design in Creation.
> When I refer to God
> "using" ordinary meanings, I don't mean to imply that ordinary means are
> somehow independent of his sovereign control. No, in one sense, you could
> simply say that oridinary means are just a description of God's ordinary
> way of governance. I used to tell my classes at Calvin College that God's
> involvement in turning water to oxygen and hydrogen in an electrolysis
> reaction is just as direct as his involvement in turning water to wine at
> the wedding at Cana. We're just used to it and understand its mechanism
> somewhat--so in our secularized world we fail to see that God is involved
> and claim that the process is autonomous. Now that's not Biblical thinking
> at all. Nothing in creation is autonomous--everything is dependent on God
> for its very existence, its properties, its behavior, etc.
Of course. This is not in dispute! I have said similar things on
many occasions: the power of God expressed in upholding the world is
no less than his power expressed in bringing the world into
existence. It is the same effectual Word. The only thing that
changes is the will and purpose of God relating to that which he has
created. This is why believing in miracles cannot be charged with a
"God of the gaps" mentality: for God, there is a seamless continuity.
> David's comment that God "uses" tools the way any skilled workman would
> makes be a bit nervous. In my way of thinking God sovereignly controls the
> tools in a way no human workman ever could. I guess I end up having to say
> that God is free to do whatever he wishes in making and governing his
> creation. Our task in science in part is to ascertain those regularities
> that God freely chose to "employ".
OK. I am happy with this. The reference to a workman using tools
was an analogy only.
> Nowhere do I ever say that the evolutionarily created world does not have a
> purpose? Also, the outcome is just what he wanted. God created all things
> for his own glory. Talk about a lofty purpose. Man's chief end is to
> glorify God and to enjoy him forever. Purpose? Absolutely?
I can understand how TEs retain a sense of purpose, although I am
not fully convinced that they reflect the biblical emphasis on
purpose. However, my objections are concerned primarily with the
crudity of the mechanism: to allow contingency free reign is hardly
the best way to effect a design intention.
> Can we see it
> when we only look at the physical-chemical-biological processes and seek to
> determine God's ordinary providence? Well, maybe not. The coin is flipped
> with a 50:50 chance of being heads or tails. Does God know the outcome?
> Does God determine the outcome? The sex of a child has a 50:50 chance of
> being male or female. Does God know the outcome? Does God determine the
> outcome?
Yes. We are agreed on this point.
> Psalm 139:13-16
>
> For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
> I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are
> wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I
> was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of
> the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me
> were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Let me make my point again using this Scripture. David is filled
with a sense of awe about the process of birth. What extraordinary
things go on within the womb! The first 9 months of a baby's life
are spent in the "secret place", where God achieves a wonderful work.
We know this to be the process of development. We know now that
there are natural causes for every change in the unborn baby. But we
are only beginning to understand those natural causes - they are so
complex, so intricate. When we do understand them, they are
breathtaking.
David's worship of the Designer magnifies God's omniscience, his
omnipotence, his wisdom and his personal interest in our lives.
Today, we can relate this to God's government of his creation: there
is nothing miraculous about the formation of our bodies in the womb.
God uses tools: tools which display his omniscience, his omnipotence,
his wisdom, and which testify to exquisite design.
I find a total contrast between these thoughts and the idea that God
has created using the "tools" of Darwinian evolution. Creation is a
glorious work of design - but I have never yet read or heard a
Theistic Evolutionist convincingly show how the "tools" of
evolutionary change (namely variation and natural selection, which I
termed blunt instruments in my last post) reflect the omniscience,
omnipotence and wisdom of God.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.