Re: [asa] Darwin's belief (was: Cameron- question of Adam)

From: dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Mon Jun 22 2009 - 17:02:52 EDT

Jon,
I think you are trying to put God into the picture as if he were involved
in natural causation. But the Creator is not so restricted. I don't claim
to understand the extent of the divine power using primary causation, I
think at all points. To think of God as man writ large is surely to
produce an idol.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:30:58 -0500 "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>
writes:
<snip>
It is further inconsistent because of the very subject of the discussion.
 Darwin himself, in one of the quotations given earlier, said "My
theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result
of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or
indeed of design of any kind, in the details." Darwin's "rigorous and
consistent" work in scientific endeavors was primarily "in the details"
of biology, where he could not bring himself to conceive of any design.
In other words, to use his words from later in the quotation, Darwin
couldn't bring himself to believe that God ordained "the spot on which
each drop of rain falls". If Darwin had known about genetics and DNA, he
would have said the same about that he would have been unable to
conceive that God manipulates every gene duplication error or every DNA
variation that leads to extinction or positive adaptation of species. He
was unable to conceive that God miraculously stepped in to create new
species out of nothing, when the evidence said to him that species
develop through apparently random adaptation and reproduction.
 
How about you, Cameron? Can you conceive of God as a manipulator of
every raindrop in the world and every chemical base in every living
organism? Or do you believe that God lets most raindrops and most
genetic transcriptions happen "on their own," with only occasional
intervention when God needs to inject some intelligent design? And how
would you propose to detect the difference between them, scientifically?
This was and is the problem for Darwin and for his followers, including
modern Theistic Evolutionists. It didn't make sense to him to
distinguish "supernatural" mutations from "natural" mutations, so he was
at least consistent in putting them all in one category. Yet, his
theoretical writing (which you have disallowed as being part of
Darwinism) couldn't admit that everything was merely the result of "blind
chance." You have consistently stated that "Darwinism" requires blind
chance, because you have left out part of what Darwin actually believed
(or felt) about nature.
 
I suspect you don't have a problem conceiving of God manipulating some,
or even all, of these (raindrops, DNA), or of front-loading the events so
that they appear natural-acting. You don't have a problem,
theoretically, allowing the possibility that God could supernaturally
create every species, although you don't necessarily believe that this is
what happened. I don't have a problem conceiving of some of the above
possibilities either, because I have a theistic viewpoint, but that is an
extra-scientific philosophy. This is the point that has continually been
made in response to your questions here. It is theology, not science,
that leads us to postulate a supernatural designer and gives us a reason
to expect that there is one.
 <snip>
____________________________________________________________
Senior Dating Online. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTQbQXENDb7EoDDodajIkqQlTsrEZoDLjWRhMd8po8RnR1TAdIfsDu/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 22 17:21:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 22 2009 - 17:21:54 EDT