Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Date: Mon Jun 01 2009 - 09:15:30 EDT

Hi Randy,

"Namely, the spectrum of naturally occurring variation
in living organisms, coupled with the resulting differential reproductive
success, is sufficient and adequate to explain the development of all past
and extant species on earth from one or more initial forms of life. No
appeal to esoteric processes is necessary. Neither the absence nor presence
of metaphysical intent or influence is indicated or precluded by this basic
perspective.

When understood in this way, would an ID advocate continue to say that ID
is entirely compatible with evolution?"

Sure. One proposes that the one or more initial forms of life were designed
and then evolution followed. In fact, the subsequent evolution would be
shaped and constrained by the architecture and composition of the initial
form(s) of life. For example, and for starters, every bit of naturally
occurring variation in living organisms is constrained by drawing from a
relatively small set of protein domains (around 1000), a set of twenty (+2)
amino acids, encoded by genes in a DNA double helix composed of four
nucleotides, decoded with essentially the same genetic code using
essentially the same molecular machine (ribosome). Since such variation is
clearly under these constraints, it is possible these constraints (and more)
were designed as a function of seeding the planet and/or as a function of
choosing the laws of Nature.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

> Terry and Allan,
> Both of you did an excellent job in articulating the issues and
> distinctions. Somehow, nuanced and slightly modified definitions of
> "evolution" and "common descent" and "natural" and similar terms have led
> to
> significant confusion. It seems that the scientific theory of evolution as
> I
> think it is understood by most scientists is not compatible with ID. The
> compatibility claimed by Behe, et. al., and concurred by Ted, seems to
> exist
> only with a qualifier that limits the definition of evolution.
>
> Maybe a way to clarify the distinction would be to try this for an
> explanation of what the typical scientist understands by the "scientific
> theory of evolution." Namely, the spectrum of naturally occurring
> variation
> in living organisms, coupled with the resulting differential reproductive
> success, is sufficient and adequate to explain the development of all past
> and extant species on earth from one or more initial forms of life. No
> appeal to esoteric processes is necessary. Neither the absence nor
> presence
> of metaphysical intent or influence is indicated or precluded by this
> basic
> perspective.
>
> When understood in this way, would an ID advocate continue to say that ID
> is entirely compatible with evolution? I suspect many people believe that
> the scientific view as expressed above necessarily entails the absence of
> divine purpose and that the scientific theory cannot be decoupled from
> such
> an implication. That may be where the conflict lies.
>
> Randy
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.27/2021 - Release Date: 03/24/09
16:00:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 1 09:15:49 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 01 2009 - 09:15:49 EDT