Thanks for responding to my question: "where then can design be
found?" The distinction between conceptualisation and fabrication is
one I am very comfortable with. I hope I am not being dense in
expecting the fabrication process to reflect something about the
designer. That is the spirit behind my question. Perhaps it should
be rephrased: "where can design be found in the choice of mutations
and natural selection for effecting evolutionary change?"
I had written:
> >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.
Steve Clark responded:
> I have three comments regarding the claim that natural selection is a very
> low view of design:
>
> 1. So?
If so, there is a tension IMO between the biblical emphasis on God
being the master craftsman/creating in wisdom and the selection of
"tools" which (assuming Darwinian mechanisms are valid) achieve the
conceptualised design in a way that is tortuous and the antithesis of
the principle "the meek shall inherit the earth".
> 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.
I did not say it was inconsistent with design - but that the
fabrication tools are very blunt. Steve, you talk about a
"preconceived" notion of design - but do you not think that the Bible
is capable of guiding our thinking on this point? In particular, I
would refer the concept of man as God's image-bearer. We speak
because God speaks. We create because God creates. We design
because God designs. We can see analogies between the way we
conceptualise and fabricate designs and the way God acts.
> 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.
It seems to me that neither of these thoughts do justice to the
biblical emphasis that the relationship of the Cosmos to God is one
of total and absolute dependence. It needs to be upheld every moment
by God's sovereign power. If this is accepted, there is no real
place for thoughts of intervention or of self-sufficiency.
I had written:
> >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.
Steve responded:
> 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.
Steve, this seems to be written to others, not to me! How does it
address the point I was making? I am saying that the
tools used for "fabrication" do tell us something about the
designer, and I am still of that opinion. I do not see an analogy
between my argument and that promoting the concept of a vacuumless
universe.
> 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.
And, in a way, I was agreeing with you. I am not saying that
Darwinism completely excludes design - but that it can only be found
a place at a very impoverished level. This may be OK for some, but
my concern is for Christians who are seeking to build their lives and
their thinking on Christ and biblical foundations. This is where
there is a tension, as the Biblical emphasis on design involves
intelligence, wisdom, craftsmanship and the like. The Darwinian
tools, which some argue were God's tools to fabricate his design
goals, appear to be an abdication of intelligence, wisdom and
craftsmanship.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.