> > 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.
>
No, actually, it doesn't. Darwinian evolution certainly designed the eye to
see with and the ear to hear with; the only difference is that it did not
start out with that purpose in mind. You seem to assume that the purpose the
structures have now was the intended purpose those structures were supposed
to have all along, such that the structures had to be specifically fabricated
with that purpose in mind. And thus if they were not fabricated specifically
with that purpose in mind that this somehow invalidates design and/or
purpose. In reality this is not the case. The eye's purpose to see does
derive from its design, but the fact that this design was fabricated by
evolution and not by direct divine intervention invalidates neither the
design nor the purpose, and neither does the fact evolution had no idea what
it was fabricating as it fabricated it. The design, and hence the purpose,
is still the same.
>
> > 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.
>
That brings up an interesting point. The craftsmen who created the great
gothic cathedrals of Medieval Europe used the most basic and (in comparison
to our modern technology) crudest of tools -- hammers, chisels, plumb lines,
levels -- yet they were able to achieve architectural and artistic wonders
that would be difficult for us to duplicate even with our modern tools and
designing/construction techniques. In other words, here were people building
masterpieces with what we would consider to be "blunt instruments". It seems
to me that if they could do what they did with simply the "blunt instruments"
they had at the time, imagine what God could do with what you would consider
to be the "blunt instruments" of evolution and molecular self-organization.
>
> > 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.
>
No, actually, you wouldn't. All you would have to do is modify your stance
just enough to allow for the possibility that a design can be arrived at with
no preconceived idea as to what it's final purpose will be.
That does, however, raise an important question: what is more important to
you, the truth or preserving your personal beliefs?
>
> 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?
>
I don't see why not. I think Steve is right; your view of God is that,
because He creates wonders, He must do so in a wonderful way. It would be as
if you require God to have a Star Trek style materials fabricator connected
to a computer with a sophisticated 3D CAD program: all He would have to do
is create His design, press a button and out would pop His creation. All
Steve is saying that God could still create wonders using what would be the
equivolent of hammer, chisel, plumb line and level. The method any craftsman
uses to create masterpieces is irrelevant; what is relevant is the quality of
the creation.
>
> Can a
> statement about adaptation to the environment be complementary to a
> statement about intelligent design?
>
Why not? Supercomputers are able to design quite sophisticated and complex
structures with very little human input; once God created space-time and
programmed it with the natural laws, all He would have to do is say, "Let us
make man," and the universe He created would be able to create an intelligent
being all on its own.
>
> Basing our thoughts on Proverbs
> 20:12, was the ear made for hearing and the eye for seeing?
>
Certainly, but that was not necessarily what they started out doing when
evolution began to create them.
>
> 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?
>
Again, why not? The various parts of a modern automobile -- the engine block
with its cylinders and pistons, the gearing mechanism, the carborator, the
spark plug, the battery, the rubber tires, even the basic cab-and-wheel
arrangement -- were not invented specifically for the automobile, but were
adapted from previously existing structures. For some, such as the
cab/wheels and the gearing mechanism, the purpose they served in their
original structures was preserved or only slightly modified, while for
others, like the spark plug and the carborator, the purpose they served was
radically altered. Yet they did not come together all at once. Each was
added sequentially, and each was added for the sole purpose of improving the
efficiency of the design so that the automobile could work better. So if the
various parts of the modern automobile can be seen as adaptations which have
had the effect of increasing its ancestors chances of being purchased and
used by the general public, then the various parts of modern man can also be
seen as adaptations which have had the effect of increasing our ancestors
chances of passing on their genes. And if man can create in this fashion,
why not God?
>
> If I were to take this position,
> I would be adopting a view I regard now as incoherent.
>
Then you must also regard modern technology as being incoherent, because it
developed in the same way.
Kevin L. O'Brien