Comments on: God and Darwinism http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/ Dialogues concerning philosophy, theology, and science. Wed, 22 May 2013 23:58:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: The Creationism Directory | http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-9351 The Creationism Directory | Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:11:40 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-9351 [...] God and Dawinism [...]

]]> By: Why I Believe Young Earth Creationism is Simply Dead Wrong | Sententias http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-257 Why I Believe Young Earth Creationism is Simply Dead Wrong | Sententias Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:21:47 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-257 [...] think it is necessarily unorthodox (although theistic Darwinism, I believe, is unorthodox–See “God and Darwinism” and “Theistic Evolution and Purposive Permission”).  I’m open to common descent [...]

]]> By: John Quin http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-256 John Quin Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:00:06 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-256 Dawinism seems agnostic to the notion of design in the ecology.

]]> By: Max Andrews http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-255 Max Andrews Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:10:25 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-255 It could be one of two: TE common descent but still design or TE Darwinism, which I think is problematic with the concept of God.

]]> By: John Quin http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-254 John Quin Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:32:22 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-254 We’ll I’m ok with that but now I’m wondering what theistic evolution is.

]]> By: Max Andrews http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-253 Max Andrews Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:03:09 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-253 What you’re advocating is actually intelligent design, not Darwinism If God exists and Darwinism is true then God must be completely removed from the evolutionary process with no teleology or final causation and he cannot be an efficient cause for anything in the process. That is, unless we want to redefine Darwinism to be something other than natural selections acting on random mutations as the mechanism for creating new information. Even if God were to delimit the range of randomness (i.e. God rolls a die and doesn’t allow it to land on three but any other number is fine) that’s still design and intelligent causation/ purposive.

]]> By: John Quin http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-252 John Quin Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:02:43 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-252 I’m going to side with Eric here. Not that I’m anti DI in any way but I find convergent evolution convincing.
I don’t see how Darwinism is in any way complete in the way it has been defined here. It seems to assume that the ecology is a “flat space” and somehow random mutations creates stuff and then natural selection chops the bits off that don’t do so well. If that is the case then Darwinism is bankrupt. But then I doubt any biologist would defend that view. Evolution on Darwin occurs inside a system with ecology. As F. Collins says genes don’t evolve in a vacuum. Natural selection just shows us the maximum of the ecology and random mutation has the process of “illuminating” the maxima and minima of the ecology. The “design” is in the ecology. In the world of electronics, that I work in, we can discover what the nature of a system is by stimulating it with a random signal (white noise). When we monitor the result we find that all the characteristics of the system have been stimulated and we can “see” the ecology of the system.
Now as far as I can see God could have either, controlled the ecology and directed how the organisms changed with a change in ecology. Or he could have created an ecology that “unfolded” with time in a way that he designed from the start. This would be very clever as everything in the system is very interdependent. I think the former option is more closely aligned with Christian theology.

Now there may be good reasons why what I say is invalid for some scientific reason but that is the way I understand things at the moment.

]]> By: An Objection to Intelligent Design I’ve Never Heard | Sententia http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-251 An Objection to Intelligent Design I’ve Never Heard | Sententia Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:51:10 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-251 [...] explained before in my post on God and Darwinism, the reasons why I’m not a Darwinist are for two reasons: 1) the origin of information must [...]

]]> By: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution? Not So Fast Huffington Post… « Sententia http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-250 Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution? Not So Fast Huffington Post… « Sententia Wed, 22 Jun 2011 03:41:10 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-250 [...] do advocate intelligent design, which is completely compatible with common descent evolution.  My only objection is with Darwinian evolution.  I appreciate what Dudley has attempted to do.  He has attempted to present Christianity in the [...]

]]> By: Eric http://sententias.org/2011/06/04/god-and-darwinism/#comment-249 Eric Thu, 09 Jun 2011 06:37:56 +0000 http://maxandrews.wordpress.com/?p=693#comment-249 Those are applications, not implications. Miller and Collins both agree with me that the process of evolution is guided. You even pointed that position out for Dr. Collins in your article.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Divine causation is not inconsistent with Darwinism. Either way, I’ve enjoyed the conversation. I’ll keep an eye out for future posts.

]]>