[Apologetics] Pope's commission on evolution

[Stuart D. Gathman]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Stephen Korsman wrote:

> The scientists claiming general evolution are simply not in a position to
> pontificate on whether or not there is an ultimate guide behind what they
> see as chance.  So I see little problem there.  When they do pontificate on
> that, they're outside their scientific bounds, and can safely be ignored.

They are pontificating.  The pontification is presented as basic fact
in high school biology.  They can't be ignored because both intelligence and
miracles have observable results.  (Though neither are repeatable.)

Advancement in science actually requires the assumption of design.
You assume that there is a rational and beautiful order to the universe
and search for it.  You sense that one of your tentative forays is 
right because of the beauty it reveals.  You're not going to find out
the function of "vestigial" organs or DNA until you begin to suspect
that maybe they have a purpose after all.  For instance, if you had
your "vestigial" coccyx removed to show how highly evolved you are,
the result would be highly embarrasing.  (It is a muscle attachment point
for the pelvic floor needed for rectal continence.)  Historically,
evolutionary thought led to the removal of even healthy tonsils, adenoids,
and appendix, because they were thought to be "vestigial".  This would
be considered malpractice today.

The materialist would answer this by saying that the patterns of the
universe appear beautiful because our brains have evolved to model them.
There is no beauty or ugliness - they are merely high level versions of
pleasure and pain.  There is no truth.  There are no real choices.  There is
no God.

> From a probability point of view, those odds are high.  But if we take God's
> intent into account, that those odds would be met was predetermined.  If we

Then that is chosen complexity.  The odds (determined by the
complexity) are measuring how often chance would roll the same configuration
without guidance.  If you find a Boggle game with the cubes like this:

  GODF
  IRST
  LOVE
  DYOU

What are the odds that this configuration came up by a random throw?  That
is the complexity.  Because the letters match an English sentence, we
might suspect that an English speaking intelligence had something to
do with the arrangement.  So then we compute the odds that letters fully
matching any English sentence or fragment could come up by chance.  That
tells us how certain we are that English speaking intelligence was
behind the design.

> can see God in everyday things like guidance and answers to prayers, it's
> not unacceptable to see God in that sort of plan.  Science cannot observe
> that using the known laws of nature, but if they claim there is no such

If you can't observe it, then there wasn't any guidance or answer to
prayer.  Are you trying to say that the whole Bible history and
Christian walk thing is imaginary?  Some kind of private mental game?
The historical accounts in the Bible are lies or fairy stories?

You *can* observe intelligent design.  Archaeology, forensics, and SETI
all hinge on recognizing intelligent design.  It is certainly much
more difficult to recognize non-human intelligence, but the SETI
people think it is possible.

You can observe answers to prayer.  Distinguishing an answer to prayer
(that isn't obviously miraculous) from accident requires recognizing
intelligent design.  People are often fooled by wishful thinking, but
a little common sense is all that is needed.  Math is only needed if
you want to estimate the odds that an answer to prayer was merely fortuitous,
something a christian geek might enjoy.  And dealing with God is interactive.
He didn't get mad at Gideon for correcting his fleece.

> Which raises a whole new question: what was creation like before sin?

I can give reasonable (but speculative) answers to all your questions, but 
let's summarize by saying, yes, creatures have evolved since the fall
to survive in a fallen world.  They will be put right again. 
"The lion will eat straw like an ox, the leopard will lie down with 
the kid.  The little child will play with the adder.  They shall not
hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain."

> defective gene for vitamin C, so that we can't manufacture our own, like all

Certainly - evolutionists even think we lost the vitamin C gene.

> was pre-sin life stress-free?  Did we have pain receptors, or was pre-sin
> life pain-free?  Where did pain come from?  Did the part of our brain that

Pain is good.  Fear of physical danger is good.  Fear of the things
a bent intelligence might purposefully do to you is bad.  The pain caused
by malevolence is bad.  Pain with no expectation of healing is bad.
As Christians, the hope (as in certainty, not wishful thinking) of
resurrection allows even the pain of this fallen world to be used
for good, "For this momentary light affliction is nothing to be compared
to the eternal weight of glory."

> prior to the fall, or was it just taking up space?  Did we have temperature
> control mechanisms that help us survive heat and cold, or, without death,
> where these unnecessary?  Did we have mechanisms to repair damaged tissue,
> or was their no injury prior to the fall?

Yes to warm blooded, and tissue repair.  Accidents are not evil.  Of
course people were supposed to learn and grow.  Your questions betray a
rather stifling view of heaven (and hence ideas about what unfallen
creation might have been like).

-- 
	      Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.