On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:26:48 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
GM>That is exactly what I think. It has always struck me as odd that casino
>owners use chance to make millions. They design their machines to win more
>than they lose.
I presume Glenn means lose more than they win!
GM>This is design, yet it uses chance.
First, if "casino owners design their machines to lose more than they win
then this is indeed "design" but it is not really "chance". Indeed, I am not an
expert on gambling but I would have thought that casinos who rigged their
machines to lose more than they win would be guilty of fraud! I always
thought how casinos did it was that the machines were random but the
prize money took into account the chance of winning and deducted the
casino's profit up front.
Second, this might be Glenn's idea of evolution but it is not the mainstream
Neo-Darwinist idea of "chance" (as in random mutation), which is what is
taught in public schools and universities. Darwinists maintain that
mutations are random in the precise sense that they are *not*
systematically biased "to win more than they lose":
"Variation and selection work together to produce evolution. The
Darwinian says that variation is random in the sense that it is not directed
towards improvement, and that the tendency towards improvement in
evolution comes from selection. We can imagine a kind of continuum of
evolutionary doctrines, with Darwinism at one end and Mutationism at the
other. The extreme mutationist believes that selection plays no role in
evolution. The direction of evolution is determined by the direction of the
mutations that are offered...To me, as a real-life Darwinian, it means only
that mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive
improvement." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p308).
GM>Yet Christians say God
>can't master chance; they say he can't use chance....
Glenn is often making claims of what "Christians" are supposed to have
said, with little or no evidence to back it up. Now maybe *some* Christians
have said that "God can't master chance...he can't use chance" (personally
I doubt that any have) but if they did that would not be a historic,
mainstream "Christian" position.
Mainstream Christian theology has always stated that God can use chance.
For example,Louis Berkhoff, formerly Professor of Systematic Theology at
Calvin College, wrote that "The Bible clearly teaches God's providential control... over
things seemingly accidental" (Berkhof L., "Systematic Theology," 1966, reprint,
p168). Similarly Spanner points out "there isn't really such a thing as chance for
him. God is the master of all things, and he disposes even the throw of the
dice. (Prov. 16:33)" (Spanner D.C., "Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution",
1987, pp48-49). Erickson, a leading contemporary evangelical theologian, states:
"The Lord also is sovereign even in what are thought of as the accidental
occurrences of life. Proverbs 16:33 says, `The lot is cast into the lap but
the decision is wholly from the lord." This is illustrated in both the Old
Testament and the New Testament. When the great storm came upon the
ship on which Jonah was traveling to Tarshish, the sailors cast lots to
determine who was responsible for the evil coming upon them the Lord
used that system to single out Jonah (Jonah 1:7). When the early believers
sought someone to replace Judas within the circle of the apostles, they in
effect nominated two, and then prayed that God would show them which
of the two, Barsabbas or Matthias, was his choice. They then cast lots; and
when the lot fell on Matthias, they enrolled him with the eleven apostles
(Acts 1:23-26). Even accidental manslaughter is regarded as being directed
by God. Note how the ordinance in Exodus describes unpremeditated
murder: "If [the murderer] did not lie in wait for [the victim], but God let
him fall into his hand," then the murderer could flee to a city of refuge
(Exod. 21:13). This is a powerful indication that God is in control of all the
circumstances of life, that nothing is pure chance." (Erickson M.J.,
"Christian Theology", 1988, Fifth Printing, pp396-397).
So the real question is not, can God work through chance? But *did* he
work *solely* through chance? The God of the Bible indeed worked through chance
at times but that is not the *only* way He worked. In the excellent new book
"Three Views on Creation and Evolution", John Jefferson Davis, Professor of
Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological
Seminary, Reflectorites
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:26:48 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
GM>That is exactly what I think. It has always struck me as odd that casino
>owners use chance to make millions. They design their machines to win more
>than they lose.
I presume Glenn means lose more than they win!
GM>This is design, yet it uses chance.
First, if "casino owners design their machines to lose more than they win
then this is indeed "design" but it is not really "chance". Indeed, I am not an
expert on gambling but I would have thought that casinos who rigged their
machines to lose more than they win would be guilty of fraud! I always
thought how casinos did it was that the machines were random but the
prize money took into account the chance of winning and deducted the
casino's profit up front.
Second, this might be Glenn's idea of evolution but it is not the mainstream
Neo-Darwinist idea of "chance" (as in random mutation), which is what is
taught in public schools and universities. Darwinists maintain that
mutations are random in the precise sense that they are *not*
systematically biased "to win more than they lose":
"Variation and selection work together to produce evolution. The
Darwinian says that variation is random in the sense that it is not directed
towards improvement, and that the tendency towards improvement in
evolution comes from selection. We can imagine a kind of continuum of
evolutionary doctrines, with Darwinism at one end and Mutationism at the
other. The extreme mutationist believes that selection plays no role in
evolution. The direction of evolution is determined by the direction of the
mutations that are offered...To me, as a real-life Darwinian, it means only
that mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive
improvement." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p308).
GM>Yet Christians say God
>can't master chance; they say he can't use chance....
Glenn is often making claims of what "Christians" are supposed to have
said, with little or no evidence to back it up. Now maybe *some*
Christians have said that "God can't master chance...he can't use chance"
(personally I doubt that any have) but if they did that would not be a
historic, mainstream "Christian" position.
Mainstream Christian theology has always stated that God can use chance.
For example, Louis Berkhoff, late former Professor of Systematic
Theology at Calvin College, wrote that "The Bible clearly teaches God's
providential control... over things seemingly accidental" (Berkhof L.,
"Systematic Theology," 1966, reprint, p168). Similarly Spanner points out
"there isn't really such a thing as chance for him. God is the master of all
things, and he disposes even the throw of the dice. (Prov. 16:33)" (Spanner
D.C., "Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution", 1987, pp48-49).
Likewise Erickson, a leading contemporary evangelical theologian, states:
"The Lord also is sovereign even in what are thought of as the accidental
occurrences of life. Proverbs 16:33 says, `The lot is cast into the lap but the
decision is wholly from the lord." This is illustrated in both the Old
Testament and the New Testament. When the great storm came upon the
ship on which Jonah was traveling to Tarshish, the sailors cast lots to
determine who was responsible for the evil coming upon them the Lord
used that system to single out Jonah (Jonah 1:7). When the early believers
sought someone to replace Judas within the circle of the apostles, they in
effect nominated two, and then prayed that God would show them which
of the two, Barsabbas or Matthias, was his choice. They then cast lots; and
when the lot fell on Matthias, they enrolled him with the eleven apostles
(Acts 1:23-26). Even accidental manslaughter is regarded as being directed
by God. Note how the ordinance in Exodus describes unpremeditated
murder: "If [the murderer] did not lie in wait for [the victim], but God let
him fall into his hand," then the murderer could flee to a city of refuge
(Exod. 21:13). This is a powerful indication that God is in control of all the
circumstances of life, that nothing is pure chance." (Erickson M.J.,
"Christian Theology", 1988, Fifth Printing, pp396-397).
So the real question is not, can God work through what humans call
chance, but *did* he work *solely* through chance? The God of the Bible
indeed worked through chance at times but that is not the *only* way He
worked.
In the excellent new book "Three Views on Creation and Evolution", John
Jefferson Davis, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, pointed out in
his response to Howard Van Till, that Christian theology has recognized
that God has worked in creation in three main ways, designated by the
terms "ordinary providence", "extraordinary providence", and "miracle":
"Historically, Christian theology has attempted to recognize this balance
between the immanence and transcendence of God in creation through the
terms ordinary providence, extraordinary providence, and miracle. The
God of the Bible is free to relate to the natural order in any of these three
ways. In ordinary providence God works immanently through the laws of
nature, such as causing grass to grow for the cattle (Ps. 104:14), or
creating animals through the ordinary biological processes of gestation (Ps.
104:24, 30). In extraordinary providence God redirects the forces of nature
for a redemptive purpose, such as causing a wind to blow quail from the
sea to feed the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings (Num. 11:31).
In miracles God transcends or suspends the ordinary laws of nature for a
redemptive purpose, illustrated by the floating axhead (2 Kings 6:6), the
feeding of the five thousand by Christ, or his bodily resurrection. (Davis
J.J., "Response to Howard J. Van Till", in Moreland J.P. & Reynolds J.M.,
eds., "Three Views on Creation and Evolution", 1999, pp227-228).
Davis is concerned that theistic evolutionists, by maximising the role of
God's ordinary providence and minimizing the role of extraordinary
providence and miracle, are presenting an impoverished and functionally
deistic view of creation, compared with "the richness and variety of the
biblically attested ways in which God relates to the natural order":
"My concern is that Van Till's understanding of creation may inadvertently
minimize the role of extraordinary providence and miracle in our
understanding of the biblical texts, reducing, in effect, God's creative work
to the category of "ordinary providence"-except in the case of the Big
Bang origin of the spacetime universe. This could amount, theologically, to
a functional deism in one's view of creation, with God supernaturally
involved in creation only at some remote beginning, and only subsequently
involved with creation in the role of sustaining it. This would seem to be an
impoverishment of the richness and variety of the biblically attested ways in
which God relates to the natural order, and would seem less robust in
providing a check against the encroachments of naturalism." (Davis J.J.,
1999, p228).
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:34:44 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
[...]
GM>I would place design at the beginning of the universe. He designed
>everything right there. It also falls in to line with and makes
>understandable the statement in the Bible that Jesus was the lamb slain
>from the foundation of the earth.
Glenn here uses an example from Rev 13:8 that I have often used. But the
point here is that God did indeed plan from eternity that Jesus would be
slain, but God actualised that plan within time by *intervening*
supernaturally in the Incarnation!
This planning from eternity to intervene later in in human history is
support for the Progressive Creationist/Mediate Creationist model that
God planned in eternity to intervene later in time within natural history.
It is *not* support for the Theistic Evolutionist/Fully Gifted Creationist
model that God built everything in within natural processes from the
beginning and thereafter only sustained those natural processes.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is perhaps clear to the reader that the genetic system is, in principle,
isomorphic with communication systems designed by communications
engineers. As a matter of fact, genetical systems have historical priority
since organisms have been using the principles of information theory and
coding theory for at least 3.8 x 10^9 years!" (Yockey H.P., "Information
Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
UK, 1992, p7)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------