Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Date: Tue Jun 02 2009 - 12:17:20 EDT

Mike,
  I don't know that the view you cite here is properly understood as ID.
This so-called "front-loading" view seems a bit puzzling to me. It doesn't
seem to follow from any scientific perspective and it doesn't really come
out of a Christian view. And I'm not sure what problem it solves. As Terry
points out, it seems to have some deistic overtones.

  Isn't it more consistent with both science and Christianity to say that
God designed, created, and continuously sustains the entire created universe
in a consistent and comprehensible manner to the end that all forms of life,
and humans in particular, would develop? Trying to say that God's activity
was all at the beginning or at the origin of life or interspersed in various
spots in the middle or hidden in quantum fluctuations or camouflaged with
randomness or whatever, seems woefully inadequate. His design and sustenance
is everywhere around us. Evolution is the name we give to the sequence of
events from the first few form(s) of life to the present biosphere. Any a
posteriori probability calculation isn't going to be adequate to reveal more
or less detectable activity by God, only more or less understanding on our
part.

  Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>
To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

> 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 Tue Jun 2 12:17:59 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 02 2009 - 12:18:00 EDT