> It seems to me that the product that is created is more
> interesting/important than the process of fabrication.
Why is it more interesting and important? The means chosen to
achieve an end is of great interest in human society! Engineers have
made a whole discipline out of it.
> It is very
> plausible that a boring, impoverished, even "blunt" process of fabrication
> could yield an outstanding product that , intuitively,does not seem
> commensurate with the perceived blunt process by which it was made.
"Very plausible"? I would say no. In my view, it would be
surprising and unexpected. I used to think that making Palaeolithic
hand axes was an example of crude craftsmanship, until I went on a
short course to do it (when I found a very high level of manual skill
was required).
> What
> does it matter if a "blunt instrument" resulted in the glorious Creation.
It matters when one's understanding of creation is that it is a
product of wisdom, wrought by a sovereign God. The tools chosen to
fabricate must relate in some way to these attributes of God.
> It follows that our limited preconception of how God SHOULD HAVE created
> the cosmos may lead us astray in recognizing the reality of God's creative
> majesty.
In my responses to you, I have not made any statements about HOW God
should have created. My point is that the tools he has used should
be consistent with his wisdom and his sovereignty.
It might be worth pointing out that there are not a few who insist
that God has created the world with innate self-organising abilities.
So perhaps ALL of us ought to examine ourselves as to whether we are
thinking wisely.
> It seems to me that Scripture focuses on that part of God's character that
> is revealed through the Creation (i.e., WHAT he created) rather than on
> knowledge of God via HOW he created.
The key word to address IMO is PURPOSE. The eye and the ear have
purposes: the eye is designed to see and the ear to hear. This is
the meaning of Proverbs 20:12. Some alleged fabrication processes
(e.g. Darwinian evolution) contradict this principle.
>Quite frankly, it doesn't matter at
> all how elegant or impoverished the fabrication process may appear to us
> mortals. In fact, if a "blunt instrument" resulted in the glorious
> Creation, then our preconception of what is "blunt" vs elegant may be flawed.
This reads to me as a blunt assertion - the reason I question this is
that the fabrication process is an essential element of turning a
design concept into an artefact. The tools used do matter when
addressing issues of purpose, meaning and the character of the
designer/craftsman.
I had written:
> > 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.
Steve wrote:
> The impoverishment you see belies a strange human myopia through which we
> presume to know how God would create. Your view here seems to be that an
> omniscient, omnipotent, glorious God must create in what we somehow define
> to befit our belief of a God sitting on a jeweled throne in the sky.
If the reason for our differences is my myopia, then it is probably
worth persevering, as I am trying to provide reasons for the views I
am advocating. I have said nothing about jeweled thrones in the sky.
My concern is PURPOSE in creation.
> But the truth is that if God created life using evolutionary tools, it
> does not change the glory of the creation or the majesty of God one
> iota.
But you are asserting the position which I am seeking to challenge!
If God created using Darwinian "tools", I would have to completely
revise my thinking on purpose. The complementary principle will not
help us out of the problem because of the issue of purpose and
design. Can a statement about undirected evolutionary change be
complementary to a statement about God's craftsmanship? Can a
statement about adaptation to the environment be complementary to a
statement about intelligent design? Basing our thoughts on Proverbs
20:12, was the ear made for hearing and the eye for seeing? Can this
possibly be complementary to the idea that these organs are
adaptations which have had the effect of increasing our ancestors
chances of passing on their genes? If I were to take this position,
I would be adopting a view I regard now as incoherent.
> My continuing point here, is that this issue has no relevance on the truth
> or falsity of whether life arose via an evolutionary process. We can only
> learn the truth about this through empirical investigation.
Do you not think that issues of purpose are involved when comparing
some of the different options?
(a) A unique chance event with an apparent probability of zero;
(b) An inevitable event because of the self-assembling nature of
matter;
(c) A purposeful act of an extra-material agent.
I do not see how you can say it has no relevance. As for empirical
investigation, I am all for that - although I would say that
empirical investigation enables us to test hypotheses and put
constraints on what we accept as true.
With best wishes,
David J. Tyler.