Re: It's the Bible or evolution

From: Freeman, Louise Margaret <lfreeman@mbc.edu>
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 14:17:23 EDT

I think it's the terms "random" and "by chance" are the ones that create
the most problems. The terms "designed" and "guided" clearly imply
oversight by a higher intelligence, while "purposeless" and "unguided" imply

its absence. But "random" and "chance"... even Christians acknowledge that
there are occasions when outcome is governed by the laws of probablity: the
mass dice-throwing exercise I do in my statistics classes to demonstrate
central limit theorem (without which none of the stat tests I use would
work!), the weekly lottery drawings, even pulling numbers out of a hat for a

church bingo game. If recognition of the role of chance in those instances
does not necessarily exclude God from that aspect of creation, why should
"random" events in evolutionary theory?

Falk spoke of this as a type of freedom woven into God's creation, analogous

to the free will humans have, even if God is all-knowing, all-powerful and
sovereign over their lives.The hard part is, conceptualizing the God can
govern random events as well as non-random events.

__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121

> ID perspective:
> In common usage among scientists and laity, evolution refers to
> the
> development of species through random, purposeless, unguided events
> rather
> than by any type of divine action. As such, evolution is inherently
> antithetical to any orthodox view of creation.

> TE perspective:
> The "common usage" is wrong and evolution can and should be
> divorced
> from the "random, purposeless, unguided.." metaphysical interpretation.
> Then it can be possible to harmonize with various views of creation.
Received on Tue Sep 27 14:18:55 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 27 2005 - 14:18:55 EDT