DT:
>My question to follow up this assertion is: if it is allowed that
>random mutation and natural selection provide the mechanism, where
>then can design be found?
As Howard Van Till points out, design and fabrication are different things.
Mutation and natural selection represent fabrication and may or may not
reflect the action of a designer.
DT
>Should we look for it in random mutation?
>Should we look for it in natural selection?
>It appears to me that neither option is attractive, and Christians
>believing in evolution have struggled to say anything convincing. By
>taking a strong view on God's sovereignty, I think it is possible to
>defend design arising from natural selection (analogous to Dawkins'
>argument that information is drawn from the environment). However,
>IMO this is a very low view of design. Natural selection is a blunt
>instrument for God to have created the animals, plants and man.
I have three comments regarding the claim that natural selection is a very
low view of design:
1. So?
2. The view that natural selection is inconsistent with design severely
limits our understanding of God's actions to some preconceived human
requirement for a "high" view of design. Given the choice between a high
view of design vs an unlimited view of God's sovereignty that is open to
the possibility of His creating life via natural selection, I prefer the
latter.
3. The idea that God created an imperfect universe that requires his
sporadic intervention is arguably a rather low view of creation. On the
other hand, a self-sustaining creation would seem to be high view of what
God created.
>What sort of design is consistent with a Christian view of creation?
>Is it intelligent design? If so, how does this relate to design via
>God sovereignly controlling the environment so that certain randomly
>occuring mutations can be selected? Is intelligent design compatible
>with the selection of such a blunt instrument to achieve his
>creative goal.
This whole line of thought that is argued by David, reminds me of the old
point of view that a vacuum was impossible because a perfect God would not
create a universe with such an obvious imperfection as an absence of
matter. Thus, these ancient theologians and philosophers argued for a
vacuumless "high view" of the creation because their preconception of God
sovereignty was quite limited. Like them, the antievolutionists who want
the creation to fit a human "high view" preconception are at risk for
missing out on the true nature of the creation and of God's creative
capabilities.
Finally, my post that David responded to was, itself, in response to
Bertvan's statement that, "random mutation and natural selection
specifically denies any possibility of design." This is what I call a
"plausibility argument." This type of argument correctly assumes that if
an idea can be shown to be implausible on a logical level, then the idea is
wrong. My point to Bertvan's plausibility argument is that creation via
natural selection is NOT implausible on a logical level. Therefore, he
must look elsewhere for a convincing antievolution argument.
Cheers,
Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Ph: 608-263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave
Madison, WI 53792