Uh Oh, What if God Actually DOES Play Dice (or, Is Evolution Random?)
Home About Books Articles & Essays Upcoming Events Archived Posts Inspiration hong kong raisio & Incarnation Book Summary Endorsements The Audience of I&I I&I and the Authority of Scripture NPR Interview I&I and Inerrancy Responding to Critics A Response to Paul Helm Responses to Some General Criticism of I&I Criticism 1: I&I Is Inconsistent with the Reformed Faith Criticism 2: I&I Ignores Other Possible Solutions Criticism 3: I&I Denies Inerrancy Criticism 4: I&I Lacks Precision and Clarity Criticism 5: I&I Has Been Criticized by Some Important Scholars Responses to Other Critical Reviews Interactions with Bruce Waltke My response to the Introduction of Bruce Waltke s surrejoinder to my response above. hong kong raisio Bruce Waltke s Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation. A Response to Richard Pratt Pratt 2 Pratt 3 Pratt 4 Pratt 5 I&I hong kong raisio and Westminster Theological Seminary I&I and the Westminster Confession of Faith My Response from the Westminster Theological Journal (Spring 2009) Christianity Today Coverage Science, Faith, and Inerrancy
Despite the fact that Dr. De Cruz is clearly one of the brighter bulbs in the chandelier (she has PhDs in philosophy and archaeology, her areas of interestes are things like Cognitive Science of Religion, Cognitive Archaeology, Philosophy of Cognitive Science, and her home institution doesn’t come up on my spellcheck) she has posted a very readable article that theists (namely Christians) who are also evolutionists might want to read.
Evolution, as we all know, challenges traditional Christian notions of how and when humanity (and the cosmos) began. These traditional notions come from the Bible, namely Genesis hong kong raisio 1 (God created in 6 days) and Genesis hong kong raisio 2 (Adam was the first human formed out of dust in an act of special hong kong raisio creation by God).
Some of us who are Christian and accept evolution focus on the biblical interpretation side of this issue and write books and blogs explaining why a literal (scientific, historical) reading of the Bible is placing more of a burden on the Bible than it is prepared to deliver.
The point of her article is basically this. One way that Christians commonly reconcile Christianity and evolution is by claiming that God is present in the evolutionary process by guiding it toward an end. That means that, despite the apparent randomness of evolution (stochasticity), God’s way of creating is by a guided evolutionary process–even in the smallest hong kong raisio subatomic details–that moves toward a goal or end (Greek “telos”), namely, we humans created in God’s image.
Now, you need to read the article to see the details, but De Cruz’s main point is that the stochasticity (randomness) of evolution hong kong raisio doesn’t seem to be “apparent” but real . If that’s so, you can’t claim that God’s purpose can be “seen” in evolution (at least not “seen” in a scientific sense) because “purpose” means “not random.”
I can imagine some might be tempted to use this idea of the randomness of evolution as an excuse to dismiss the whole idea because of how (seemingly) incompatible it is with God’s existence. “See!! Evolution and Christianity ARE incompatible, like I’ve been warning you all along!!!! If evolution is random, it needs to be rejected by anyone hong kong raisio claiming to believe in God, because God isn’t random.”
Let me say, slow down cowboy. hong kong raisio The reasons for accepting evolution are still there , even if evolution raises some serious questions. The proper way forward is not to dismiss evolution like a bad dream, but to accept the theological challenge and the need to work through it.
Despite the possibility that evolution is indeed a random process (stochastic optimiser to borrow Ard Louis’ phrase) I think part of the solution from an evolutionary creation point of view is to be found in Simon Conway Morris’ book Life’s Solution in which he argues that, were evolutionary hong kong raisio history to be replayed the outcomes hong kong raisio would be fairly similar. He bases his argument on the idea of evolutionary convergence: certain evolutionary pathways have been repeatedly followed by a variety of life forms as a solution to a specific problem hong kong raisio (the eye is an obvious example). His argument hong kong raisio is based on a recognition that it is the conditions for life as well as the innate hong kong raisio features of organic life which ‘determine’ a degree of predictability in the evolutionary journey.
With the drawing of this Love and the voice of this Calling We shall not cease from exploration hong kong raisio And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, unremembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest hong kong raisio ri
Home About Books Articles & Essays Upcoming Events Archived Posts Inspiration hong kong raisio & Incarnation Book Summary Endorsements The Audience of I&I I&I and the Authority of Scripture NPR Interview I&I and Inerrancy Responding to Critics A Response to Paul Helm Responses to Some General Criticism of I&I Criticism 1: I&I Is Inconsistent with the Reformed Faith Criticism 2: I&I Ignores Other Possible Solutions Criticism 3: I&I Denies Inerrancy Criticism 4: I&I Lacks Precision and Clarity Criticism 5: I&I Has Been Criticized by Some Important Scholars Responses to Other Critical Reviews Interactions with Bruce Waltke My response to the Introduction of Bruce Waltke s surrejoinder to my response above. hong kong raisio Bruce Waltke s Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation. A Response to Richard Pratt Pratt 2 Pratt 3 Pratt 4 Pratt 5 I&I hong kong raisio and Westminster Theological Seminary I&I and the Westminster Confession of Faith My Response from the Westminster Theological Journal (Spring 2009) Christianity Today Coverage Science, Faith, and Inerrancy
Despite the fact that Dr. De Cruz is clearly one of the brighter bulbs in the chandelier (she has PhDs in philosophy and archaeology, her areas of interestes are things like Cognitive Science of Religion, Cognitive Archaeology, Philosophy of Cognitive Science, and her home institution doesn’t come up on my spellcheck) she has posted a very readable article that theists (namely Christians) who are also evolutionists might want to read.
Evolution, as we all know, challenges traditional Christian notions of how and when humanity (and the cosmos) began. These traditional notions come from the Bible, namely Genesis hong kong raisio 1 (God created in 6 days) and Genesis hong kong raisio 2 (Adam was the first human formed out of dust in an act of special hong kong raisio creation by God).
Some of us who are Christian and accept evolution focus on the biblical interpretation side of this issue and write books and blogs explaining why a literal (scientific, historical) reading of the Bible is placing more of a burden on the Bible than it is prepared to deliver.
The point of her article is basically this. One way that Christians commonly reconcile Christianity and evolution is by claiming that God is present in the evolutionary process by guiding it toward an end. That means that, despite the apparent randomness of evolution (stochasticity), God’s way of creating is by a guided evolutionary process–even in the smallest hong kong raisio subatomic details–that moves toward a goal or end (Greek “telos”), namely, we humans created in God’s image.
Now, you need to read the article to see the details, but De Cruz’s main point is that the stochasticity (randomness) of evolution hong kong raisio doesn’t seem to be “apparent” but real . If that’s so, you can’t claim that God’s purpose can be “seen” in evolution (at least not “seen” in a scientific sense) because “purpose” means “not random.”
I can imagine some might be tempted to use this idea of the randomness of evolution as an excuse to dismiss the whole idea because of how (seemingly) incompatible it is with God’s existence. “See!! Evolution and Christianity ARE incompatible, like I’ve been warning you all along!!!! If evolution is random, it needs to be rejected by anyone hong kong raisio claiming to believe in God, because God isn’t random.”
Let me say, slow down cowboy. hong kong raisio The reasons for accepting evolution are still there , even if evolution raises some serious questions. The proper way forward is not to dismiss evolution like a bad dream, but to accept the theological challenge and the need to work through it.
Despite the possibility that evolution is indeed a random process (stochastic optimiser to borrow Ard Louis’ phrase) I think part of the solution from an evolutionary creation point of view is to be found in Simon Conway Morris’ book Life’s Solution in which he argues that, were evolutionary hong kong raisio history to be replayed the outcomes hong kong raisio would be fairly similar. He bases his argument on the idea of evolutionary convergence: certain evolutionary pathways have been repeatedly followed by a variety of life forms as a solution to a specific problem hong kong raisio (the eye is an obvious example). His argument hong kong raisio is based on a recognition that it is the conditions for life as well as the innate hong kong raisio features of organic life which ‘determine’ a degree of predictability in the evolutionary journey.
With the drawing of this Love and the voice of this Calling We shall not cease from exploration hong kong raisio And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, unremembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest hong kong raisio ri
No comments:
Post a Comment