Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Dembski and theology

Expand Messages
  • James Goff
    DEMBSKI AND THEOLOGY gluadys: ... the theory of evolution which theistic evolutionists embrace is the standard (or Darwinian) theory. Let s let Dembski weigh
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 1, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      DEMBSKI AND THEOLOGY

      gluadys: "... the theory of evolution which theistic evolutionists embrace is the standard (or Darwinian) theory."

      Let's let Dembski weigh in on this. The following are excerpts from his book "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology."

      "Theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, treating only undirected natural processes in the origin and development of life.

      "Theistic evolution places theism and evolution in an odd tension. If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was ostensibly to conceal his purpose in creation. Within theistic evolution, God is a master of stealth who constantly eludes our best efforts to detect him empirically. Yes, the theistic evolutionist believes that the universe was designed. Yet insofar as there is design in the universe, it is design we recognize strictly through the eyes of faith. Accordingly the physical world itself provides no evidence that life is designed. For all we can tell, our appearance on planet earth is an accident.

      "Now it may be that God has so arranged the physical world that our native intellect can discover no reliable evidence of him. Yet if this is so, how could we know it? Scripture and church tradition are hardly univocal here. Throughout church history we find Christian thinkers who regard our native intellect as hopelessly inadequate for finding even a scrap of reliable knowledge about God from the physical world, and others who regard our native intellect as able to extract certain limited though still reliable knowledge about God from the physical world....The current theological fashion prefers an evolutionary God inaccessible to scientific scrutiny over a designer God whose actions are clearly detectable.

      "How then do we determine whether God has so arranged the physical world that our native intellect can discover reliable evidence of him? The answer is obvious: Put our native intellect to the task and see whether indeed it produces conclusive evidence of design. Doing so poses no threat to the Christian faith. It challenges neither the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand of the Father nor the second coming of Christ. Indeed the physical world is silent about the revelation of Christ in Scripture. On the other hand, nothing prevents the physical world from independently testifying to the God revealed in Scripture. Now intelligent design does just this - it puts our native intellect to work and thereby confirms that a designer of remarkable talents is responsible for the physical world. How this designer connects with the God of Scripture is then for theology to determine.

      "Intelligent design and theistic evolution therefore differ fundamentally about whether the design of the universe is accessible to our native intellect. Design theorists say yes; theistic evolutionists say no. Why the disagreement? To be sure, there is a scientific disagreement: Design theorists think the scientific evidence favors design whereas theistic evolutionists think it favors Darwin or one of his naturalistic successors. Nonetheless in discounting intelligent design, theistic evolutionists tend also to appeal to philosophical and theological considerations. Pessimism about the powers of native intellect to transcend the physical world is a dominant theme in certain theological traditions. Often aesthetic criteria for how God should create or interact with the world take precedence (e.g., 'A worthy deity wouldn't have done it that way!'). My own view is that it is much more shaky to speculate about what God would have done or what the world might in principle reveal than simply to go to the world and see what it actually does reveal.

      "If theistic evolution finds no solace from intelligent design, neither does it find solace from the Darwinian establishment. For the Darwinian establishment, the 'theism' in theistic evolution is superfluous. For the hard-core naturalist, theistic evolution at best includes God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise purely naturalistic account of life. Thus by Occam's razor, since God is an unnecessary rider in our understanding of the physical world, theistic evolution ought to dispense with all talk of God outright and get rid of the useless adjective 'theistic.' This, at any rate, is the received view within the Darwinian establishment.

      "It's for failing to take Occam's razor seriously that the Darwinian establishment despises theistic evolution. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Darwinian establishment views theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end. It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on earth has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of an afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists. (Richard Dawkins is a case in point.)

      "Unlike full-blooded Darwinists, however, the design theorists' objection to theistic evolution rests not with what the term 'theistic' is doing in the phrase 'theistic evolution' but rather with what the term 'evolution' is doing there. The design theorists' objection to theistic evolution is not in the end that theistic evolution retains God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise perfectly acceptable scientific theory of life's origin and development. Rather their objection is that the scientific theory which is supposed to undergird theistic evolution, often called the neo-Darwinian synthesis, is itself problematic." (end quote)

      In Romans 1:20, the Apostle Paul wrote: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his ETERNAL POWER and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from WHAT HAS BEEN MADE..." (emphasis added). Surely God's eternal power includes his ability to effect design in the physical world, in which case we should be able to clearly see evidence of God's designs in "what has been made," not merely through the eyes of faith, but through eyes that observe and minds that analyze the physical world. It seems to me that theistic evolution - which holds that the physical world provides no evidence that life is designed - is quite at odds with Paul's claim that "what has been made" reveals God's eternal power. Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, is quite compatible with Paul's claim. Unlike theistic evolution, ID theory holds that the physical world provides scientists with empirical evidence of design. Connecting that evidence to the God of Scripture is, of course, an act of faith, but I have to wonder why theistic evolutionists argue so ardently that "what has been made" provides us with no evidence of design, in effect declaring (contra Scripture) that "what has been made" provides us with no evidence of God's eternal power. As Dembski puts it: "The point of intelligent design is that there are events in the world which science as such can reliably attribute to intelligence. For theistic evolutionists everything is designed, but nothing can be scientifically known to be designed." God's providence - his divine guidance - is not the point of conflict between ID theory and theistic evolution. Instead, ID theory is compatible with the Scriptural claim that "what has been made" provides clear evidence of God's providence, while theistic evolution (that is to say, Darwinism with some God talk tacked on) is not.

      Jim in Vermont

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... embrace is the standard (or Darwinian) theory. ... his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. ... evolution is no different
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 2, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "James Goff" <JamesGoff_960@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > DEMBSKI AND THEOLOGY
        >
        > gluadys: "... the theory of evolution which theistic evolutionists
        embrace is the standard (or Darwinian) theory."
        >
        > Let's let Dembski weigh in on this. The following are excerpts from
        his book "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology."
        >
        > " When boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic
        evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, treating only
        undirected natural processes in the origin and development of life.
        >



        He is quite right. The is really no such thing as theistic evolution.
        Nor is there any such thing as atheistic evolution. There is evolution
        and a scientific theory of evolution. Neither the factual observation
        of evolution, nor the theory developed to explain these observations
        owes anything to atheism or theism. It is the same theory for all
        scientific participants and observers. Indeed, this is true of all
        science, and all evidence-based theories. Observation and logic do not
        change (or ought not to change) from one observer to another.



        By contrast, neither atheism nor theism is a scientific proposition.
        The subject under consideration (God/gods) is not a scientific factum.
        And because God must be discussed and experienced in other than
        scientific modes, science per se can provide no evidence for or against
        the existence of divine entities or forces.



        For Christian theologians, this is entirely consistent with the doctrine
        of creation. God's created world is for all its inhabitants,
        whatever their attitude toward God. Science ought not to be able to
        discover something in nature that is true for believers but not for
        unbelievers, or vice versa. (This does not exclude discovering design.
        If science can discover design in nature, it will be just as evident to
        the non-believer as to the believer.) That the structure and operation
        of the universe is consistent from observer to observer as long as the
        same frame of reference and the same method of observation is
        used---that scientific experiments will get consistent results no matter
        who is in charge of the experiment, no matter what the personal
        religious/philosophical perspective of the scientist is—this is a
        given of the doctrine of creation.



        So Dembski is correct in saying that the scientific content of
        "theistic" evolution is no different from that of
        "atheistic" evolution. If Christians are right about creation
        and the God who creates, this is what we ought to expect.



        > "Theistic evolution places theism and evolution in an odd tension. If
        God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose
        was ostensibly to conceal his purpose in creation. Within theistic
        evolution, God is a master of stealth who constantly eludes our best
        efforts to detect him empirically. Yes, the theistic evolutionist
        believes that the universe was designed. Yet insofar as there is design
        in the universe, it is design we recognize strictly through the eyes of
        faith. Accordingly the physical world itself provides no evidence that
        life is designed. For all we can tell, our appearance on planet earth is
        an accident.
        >





        Demski makes a subtle shift here. He speaks of God purposely creating
        life—something any theist would agree with. And he speaks of the
        universe being designed—again something any theist would agree with.
        But he moves from these principles to "design in the universe"
        and to "life being designed".



        It is one thing to say the universe is designed. It is another to say
        there are visible signatures of design in the universe and to try and
        identify these specifically. I don't say this quest is wrong, but
        perhaps IDists are looking at the wrong kind of evidence. To me the
        consistency, regularity and predictability of natural processes is
        evidence of design. I don't see what a non-evolutionary origin of a
        bacterial flagellum adds to that. In fact, if anything, it detracts
        from that, for it says that we have a natural
        process—evolution—which does not act regularly and predictably;
        a process not like the rest of nature that does its thing as it was
        designed to do. To non-ID theologians, evolution itself is designed,
        and is the evidence of design IDists claim to be seeking.



        Similarly to have the intention to create life is not quite the same
        thing as designing life, much less particular life forms. This, in
        fact, may be the crucial difference between the non-ID and ID theology.
        The ID theology lays emphasis on particularities of design that
        ostensibly cannot be accounted for by natural process. The non-ID
        theology is more focused on purpose. We assume that if it was God's
        purpose to produce life and a diversity of species through natural
        process, then the natural processes are designed to accomplish those
        purposes. So where ID looks for design in the finished product, the
        non-IDist looks to the purpose and how natural processes were used to
        bring about God's ultimate purposes: life, biodiversity, provision
        for all creatures, humanity, intelligence, capacity for spiritual
        communion.





        > "Now it may be that God has so arranged the physical world that our
        native intellect can discover no reliable evidence of him. Yet if this
        is so, how could we know it? Scripture and church tradition are hardly
        univocal here. Throughout church history we find Christian thinkers who
        regard our native intellect as hopelessly inadequate for finding even a
        scrap of reliable knowledge about God from the physical world, and
        others who regard our native intellect as able to extract certain
        limited though still reliable knowledge about God from the physical
        world....The current theological fashion prefers an evolutionary God
        inaccessible to scientific scrutiny over a designer God whose actions
        are clearly detectable.
        >



        This, I think, is somewhat of a misrepresentation of the non-ID
        theology. We are as committed as Paul was to seeing the visible
        creation as a revelation of God. And in our view the actions of God are
        clearly detectable, but not in the manner put forward by IDists. What
        IDists identify as inscrutable vis-à-vis God (evolutionary process)
        we would see as revelatory.



        But, and this points out the difference between science and philosophy,
        where the science is objectively observable to all no matter what
        one's personal philosophic or theological commitment, creation as
        revelation can be denied if one's philosophical commitment demands
        such denial. The atheist will not see what is clearly revealed by
        creation, not because that revelation is invisible, but because s/he
        willfully refuses to see it. As the proverb says, there are none so
        blind as those who will not see. Or as Jesus said to the Pharisees
        "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say
        `We see', your sin remains."







        > "How then do we determine whether God has so arranged the physical
        world that our native intellect can discover reliable evidence of him?
        The answer is obvious: Put our native intellect to the task and see
        whether indeed it produces conclusive evidence of design. Doing so poses
        no threat to the Christian faith. It challenges neither the cross, the
        tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the
        sitting at the right hand of the Father nor the second coming of Christ.
        Indeed the physical world is silent about the revelation of Christ in
        Scripture. On the other hand, nothing prevents the physical world from
        independently testifying to the God revealed in Scripture. Now
        intelligent design does just this - it puts our native intellect to work
        and thereby confirms that a designer of remarkable talents is
        responsible for the physical world. How this designer connects with the
        God of Scripture is then for theology to determine.
        >



        If Dembski would put his considerable talents to showing how evolution
        itself is evidence of the Creator, he would be doing the church much
        more good. As it is he caters instead to those elements who actually
        deny science and the very method he suggests to find design in nature.
        He himself may be comfortable with deep time and common descent, but
        much of his Christian audience is not.

        The most extreme creationists deny the very possibility of getting any
        reliable information about nature through observation and rational
        analysis at all; no extra-biblical evidence is deemed acceptable if it
        does not concord with their interpretation of scripture. But if Dembski
        wants to find design through a scientific examination of the physical
        world, leaving the theologians to work out how the science connects with
        the designer, he is on a collision course with this element.



        I find it ironic, too, that he is willing to leave it to the theologians
        to work out how the designer connects with the God of scripture, yet
        suspicious of theologians who have worked out how evolution connects
        with the God of scripture.





        > "Intelligent design and theistic evolution therefore differ
        fundamentally about whether the design of the universe is accessible to
        our native intellect. Design theorists say yes; theistic evolutionists
        say no.





        Not really. It is more in how one locates design and purpose in nature.
        Non-ID theologians don't say design is not accessible to our native
        intellect. But they do include Darwinian evolution as part of
        nature's testimony of divine purpose and design.





        >Why the disagreement? To be sure, there is a scientific disagreement:
        Design theorists think the scientific evidence favors design whereas
        theistic evolutionists think it favors Darwin or one of his naturalistic
        successors. Nonetheless in discounting intelligent design, theistic
        evolutionists tend also to appeal to philosophical and theological
        considerations. Pessimism about the powers of native intellect to
        transcend the physical world is a dominant theme in certain theological
        traditions. Often aesthetic criteria for how God should create or
        interact with the world take precedence (e.g., 'A worthy deity wouldn't
        have done it that way!').

        >

        >



        Interestingly, this last is very often used against evolution by
        creationists.

        But it is an interesting conundrum. No doubt, some kind of designer
        would intend to make parasitic wasps to feed on the innards of living
        caterpillers. But would that be the God of Christianity? Does it make
        any difference if God did not specifically intend this "design"
        but permitted it to emerge from the process of evolution? There are
        issues of theodicy either way, and the field of natural science is only
        one small part of that whole field.





        > My own view is that it is much more shaky to speculate about what God
        would have done or what the world might in principle reveal than simply
        to go to the world and see what it actually does reveal.
        >



        I would agree with him here. Scripture tells us that the Creator said
        of his Creation "It is good/very good." That doesn't mean
        we have a handle on what God calls "good". Some people shy away
        from evolution because they cannot imagine a good creation that depends
        on such a process. Some people shy away from ID because they can't
        imagine how certain designs can be called good (or even, in some cases,
        intelligent). But I think we are assured that whatever the nature of
        nature, it is good. So let's not be afraid of what it actually does
        reveal—even when the revelation is Darwinian evolution.





        > "If theistic evolution finds no solace from intelligent design,
        neither does it find solace from the Darwinian establishment. For the
        Darwinian establishment, the 'theism' in theistic evolution is
        superfluous. For the hard-core naturalist, theistic evolution at best
        includes God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise purely naturalistic
        account of life. Thus by Occam's razor, since God is an unnecessary
        rider in our understanding of the physical world, theistic evolution
        ought to dispense with all talk of God outright and get rid of the
        useless adjective 'theistic.' This, at any rate, is the received view
        within the Darwinian establishment.
        >



        Of course, it is not appropriate to ask a third party to interpret
        someone else's words, but I really wonder who he means by
        "Darwinian establishment" and how he relates this to the theory
        of evolution as science. So I do ask what the phrase means to
        you—recognizing that your take on it may actually not be what
        Dembski intends.



        For the moment, what I basically get from this is that he has diverged
        from his initial position that the scientific content of evolution is
        the same for "theistic" and "atheistic" evolution. He
        now seems to be implying that for the "Darwinian establishment"
        atheism is embedded in the theory of (Darwinian) evolution. Yet he
        treats this differently from theism. For the exclusion of God is just
        as much an unnecessary rider to the theory of evolution as the inclusion
        of God would be. Occam's razor ought to slice both off, not just
        theism.







        > "It's for failing to take Occam's razor seriously that the Darwinian
        establishment despises theistic evolution. Not to put too fine a point
        on it, the Darwinian establishment views theistic evolution as a
        weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the respectability that
        comes with being a full-blooded >Darwinist but refuses to follow the
        logic of Darwinism through to the end.

        >



        Of course, even if he is right, it doesn't matter a hill of beans.
        Theistic evolutionists are not concerned with how those with different
        (anti-)theologies assess their own. Theistic evolutionists who are also
        evolutionary biologists rely on their science, not their theology, for
        academic acceptance.



        And the question also arises of what are the criteria by which a
        "full-blooded Darwinist" is identified. Does membership in this
        club require a profession of atheism? In that case, it is not a
        scientific criterion—not even if one also has to be a scientist to
        enter. Or is it sufficient to accept that the (Darwinian) theory of
        evolution is sound science with no current rival. In that case, it must
        include theistic evolutionists as "full-blooded Darwinists" and
        atheism cannot be seen as the only logical consequence of Darwinism.



        Perhaps it needs to be restated here too that theistic evolutionists see
        "theistic" as a term referring to a person, not to the theory of
        evolution. IOW there is no intention to make theism a part of the
        theory of evolution. Rather the intention is to accept the science of
        evolution as a theist, and possibly to come to some theological
        conclusions as a result.





        >It takes courage to give up the comforting belief that life on earth
        has a purpose. It takes courage to live without the consolation of an
        afterlife. Theistic evolutionists lack the stomach to face the ultimate
        meaninglessness of life, and it is this failure of courage that makes
        them contemptible in the eyes of full-blooded Darwinists. (Richard
        Dawkins is a case in point.)
        >



        Dembski here seems to be repeating a common atheist point of view. It
        should be obvious that it is also a misrepresentation of why scientists
        (or anyone) chooses to believe in God. Depicting belief as a form of
        cowardice may give an atheist a sense of nobility, but it is nothing but
        a distortion of the nature of belief. Most theists find it is quite as
        challenging to one's courage to believe as it is to disbelieve.



        Does this have any relevance at all to the theory of evolution? Surely
        not.





        > "Unlike full-blooded Darwinists, however, the design theorists'
        objection to theistic evolution rests not with what the term 'theistic'
        is doing in the phrase 'theistic evolution' but rather with what the
        term 'evolution' is doing there. The design theorists' objection to
        theistic evolution is not in the end that theistic evolution retains God
        as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise perfectly acceptable scientific
        theory of life's origin and development. Rather their objection is that
        the scientific theory which is supposed to undergird theistic evolution,
        often called the neo-Darwinian synthesis, is itself problematic." (end
        quote)
        >





        Dembski himself seems to misunderstand the "theism" of
        "theistic" evolution, as an attempt to smuggle God into the
        actual science of evolution. So let's remember that theologically,
        creation is for everyone, irrespective of their attitude to God. That
        is why the science has to be the same for both the theist and the
        atheist. God did not make two creations, one for believers and a
        different one for unbelievers. Rather God made one creation, and in so
        far as believers and unbelievers share the same universe, the same
        sensory capacity for observation and the same capacity for reasonable
        interpretation of those observations, they will necessarily come to the
        same scientific conclusions. On this basis, God is indeed an
        "unnecessary rider" in an otherwise perfectly acceptable
        scientific theory. What Dembski seems to misunderstand is that theistic
        evolutionists know that and operate within that scientific framework.
        They do not actually attempt any attachment of God to the theory of
        evolution.



        At least, at the end, he tries to get back to science. But given his
        excursion into discussions of "Darwinian establishment" and
        "full-blooded Darwinists", I am still left wondering what he
        actually understands "Darwinism" to be. The neo-Darwinian
        synthesis may or may not be scientifically problematic, but it is not
        theologically problematic. Yet his condemnation of Darwinism seems to
        be more theological than scientific. The whole essay, of course, is
        about the respective theologies of ID and TE. But insofar as theistic
        evolutionists are supportive of sound science, they will follow where
        the science leads—including away from Darwinism if that is the case.
        It is not as if the Christian (or Muslim or Jewish, etc.) theism of TEs
        depended on the theory of evolution to validate it. No more than the
        theory of evolution, as they understand it, depends on theism.





        > In Romans 1:20, the Apostle Paul wrote: "For since the creation of the
        world God's invisible qualities - his ETERNAL POWER and divine nature -
        have been clearly seen, being understood from WHAT HAS BEEN MADE..."
        (emphasis added). Surely God's eternal power includes his ability to
        effect design in the physical world, in which case we should be able to
        clearly see evidence of God's designs in "what has been made," not
        merely through the eyes of faith, but through eyes that observe and
        minds that analyze the physical world. It seems to me that theistic
        evolution - which holds that the physical world provides no evidence
        that life is designed - is quite at odds with Paul's claim that "what
        has been made" reveals God's eternal power.

        >

        >



        But you have it inside out. Theistic evolutionists do not hold that the
        physical world provides no evidence of design. It holds that evidence
        of design is abundant in all of the physical world.



        More properly, we should note that Paul did not speak of creation
        revealing design, but revealing the eternal power and divine nature. I
        suggest that TEs see the latter as being revealed more in purpose than
        in the details of design. What God wills to exist does exist, and
        God's purpose in nature is accomplished through the qualities with
        which God endowed nature.



        Design can actually be a very problematical as a testimony to God's
        power and nature. Did God not have the power to redirect the recurrent
        laryngeal nerve in the giraffe (or even any creature with a neck) so
        that it does not have to loop down around the aorta as it connects
        larynx to brain? Dembski can certainly claim that bad design is still
        design, but it is problematical to connect bad design with the Creator
        of Christian faith. Just as problematic at least as acknowledging God
        as the Creator of evolutionary process. So even if we do detect design,
        does it really testify to God's glory? Or to God's sadism? To
        God's wisdom? Or to God's incompetence? IOW the problem of
        theodicy does not go away with ID. It simply changes location.





        >I have to wonder why theistic evolutionists argue so ardently that
        "what has been made" provides us with no evidence of design, in effect
        declaring (contra Scripture) that "what has been made" provides us with
        no evidence of God's eternal power.

        >







        But that is the opposite of the TE position. Contra ID which looks for
        evidence of design that stands out against a world in which design is
        mostly absent, TE affirms that ALL of "what has been made"
        provides evidence of God's eternal power.



        I lost some files when my old computer crashed, so I can no longer find
        the exact quote, but it came originally from a 19th century European
        Christian publication called "Light" from a Christian supporter
        of Darwin's theory. The gist of his remark was that, given the
        theory of evolution, "we must find God everywhere or nowhere".
        The atheist opts to find God nowhere. The IDist opts to find God almost
        nowhere. The TE opts to find God everywhere.



        >As Dembski puts it: "For theistic evolutionists everything is
        designed, but nothing can be scientifically known to be designed."





        No, that is not correct either. It wouldn't even be correct for a
        non-theist (given that the designer is not necessarily God). It is
        certainly possible to know scientifically that something has been
        designed, since we can identify many things as designed by humans. It
        may be possible to detect non-human design scientifically. Perhaps we
        shall one day discover an artifact on another planet that is indubitably
        the product of intelligence. Or even in some remote part of this
        planet.



        The correct stance is that we have not found anything in biology that we
        can say definitively is not a possible (even plausible) "design"
        of the evolutionary process.



        >God's providence - his divine guidance - is not the point of conflict
        between ID theory and theistic evolution. Instead, ID theory is
        compatible with the Scriptural claim that "what has been made" provides
        clear evidence of God's providence, while theistic evolution (that is to
        say, Darwinism with some God talk tacked on) is not.
        >
        >
        >



        I would disagree with you on both counts. ID theory is not necessarily
        compatible with the Scriptural claim that "what has been made"
        provides clear evidence of God's providence. The designer is not
        necessarily God and in many cases the apparent design raises issues on
        the nature of God that are not compatible with Christian faith in
        God's power or goodness. Meanwhile, evolution, being a part of
        "what has been made" seems to function to produce what God
        purposes to produce: a world filled with life of all sorts, including
        that special form of life we call humans, made in the image of God.



        I don't think this is an area where a TE view of evolution shows any
        inferiority to an IDists view. If anything I find the TE view more
        respectful of divine providence, for it assumes that what God creates is
        created to fulfill his purpose and does so. ID seems to present a God
        who couldn't manage to produce a process that would fulfill his
        purpose without additional help.







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.