Loren asked:
> Did God precisely determine your genetic make-up, down to the level
> of which genes you inherited from which parent?
>
> If your answer is "no," then you allow for some very significant
> "free reign for contingency."
A negative answer would allow much free reign, but I do not think
this answer would conflict with my design argument. This is because
determining our "genetic makeup" is not a case of creating new
information. But I suppose that my argument was intended as a
response to Terry's calvinistic perspective. If I understand him
correctly, he is saying that the only effective defence of the TE
position is a calvinistic one. I am not disputing the calvinistic
perspective - only pointing out that Calvinists ought NOT to be
comfortable with TE.
> If your answer is "yes," God does precisely determine our genetic
> make-ups, then tell me: what do you think of the crudity of the "tools" of
> meiosis and recombination?
OK. This is the option that I consider Calvinists would approve. I
suggest here that the word "crudity" is inappropriate. The tools are
IMO eminently suitable for their intended purpose of rearranging
genetic material in a way that is advantageous, not hazardous, for
new organisms.
> If genetic mutation and variation is a "crude tool" for evolution, then so
> are meiosis and recombination are crude tools for designing new human
> individuals. If God controls the tools of meiosis and recombination to
> design individuals to exact specifications, then mutation is no more crude
> a tool to design species.
The analogy is not one which commends itself to me!
(a) Meiosis and recombination are good examples of exquisite design,
with a highly complex cellular architecture functioning normally.
There are even repair mechanisms to put right abberations in the
copying process. Mutation is not a tool, but an abberant functioning
of a tool.
(b) Meiosis and recombination introduce no novel design features, as
is demonstrated by the extensive labour of plant and animal breeders.
There are limits to variation which breeding programmes effectively
explore. Mutation is primarily damaging to the organism. Examples
of beneficial mutations are all debateable as are also examples of
mutations increasing information and novel design features. This is
not strong ground for Darwinists - and yet it is a major requirement
of their theory.
I conclude from this that it is easy to appreciate meiosis and
recombination as designed tools which operate in the sphere of God's
providence and sovereign control. Furthermore, that it is difficult,
if not impossible, to see mutation in the same light, as the
mechanism is generally damaging and involves a mal-functioning of
complex cellular machinery. This is not to say that mutations occur
outside God's sovereign control, but rather to point out that the
marks of creative design are absent.
> And how can natural selection be a crude tool
> if sparrows are watched over so carefully?
Natural selection is perfectly valid as a concept in ecology.
Believers recognise that natural selection is a part of God's
providencial government of the world. But is natural selection a
design tool? Is it capable of winnowing natural variations to
achieve novel design features? This is the point under dispute - it
is a blunt instrument at best! The exchanges over the Peppered Moth
surely remind us of this. For me, the biggest lesson to learn from
the Peppered Moth is that it is extraordinarily difficult to identify
the selection forces acting on a population: none of those forces
originally claimed to be affecting the Peppered Moth population are
now accepted as valid. There must be forces - but it is easy
to be simplistic in our analysis of them.
Thanks for your response, Loren, but I remain convinced that TE has
serious problems in relating the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution
with the Biblical revelation that the omnipotent, omniscient God has
designed and created according to wisdom.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.