From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:40:41 GMT


   In article <1992Aug25.151754.9469@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com 
(Drew Lawson) asks...

>If the doctrine of evolution is not atheistic (in the strict sense --
>existing without God, not denying God's existence), how does God fit
>in?

   Fair enough question, Drew, and one that is worth thinking about.  Here
is a useful analogy that may help focus your thoughts on this topic.

   The Earth orbits the Sun due to the conservations of energy, angular
momentum, and the Runge-Lenz vector.  Now how does the theistic God of
Christianity fit in?  First, let's look at three options that are not open
to theists:

1) The conservation laws exist without God.  This is what you have called
   "strict atheism", which is definately not a theistically acceptable belief.

2) A Creator initially set up the Earth and the conservation laws, and thus
   created a clock-work mechanism in which further intervention is neither
   necessary nor expressed.  This is deism, which is definately not a
   theistically acceptable belief.

3) The Universe (including physical law) IS God.*  This is either pantheism
   or panentheism (depending on some other distinctions which are not really
   important here), which are definately not theistically acceptable beliefs.

   Now, what theistically credible view do you plan to promote to explain the
current theory of the Earth's orbital motion?  Whatever answer you claim, the
same argument is bound to hold for any evolution-based theory of origins.**
Once you find a paradigm in which theism and a single natural process of any
type can coexist, you have found a paradigm in which theism and all natural
processes can coexist.  Your question then is one of much deeper import than
just the theory of evolution.  Unless you have created a false heirachical
system of theories (evolution in one group, Earth's orbital motion in the
other) you will have answered your own question.***

>I may have seen only poor presentations of the material, but the
>impression I have received is "God is not relevant to the topic at
>hand." (as quoted from my post)

   Just a guess, but did the presentations that you have witnessed deal with
the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory?  If so, then it is indeed the
case that "God is not relevant to the topic at hand."  Look at my synopsis of
your question found above--all such discussions of the interplay of God and
natural law are metaphysical in nature.  Metaphysics and science rarely share
any useful common ground, and it usually is best in scientific discussion to
separate the two (forcibly if need be 8^} ) and ignore the former.

>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,

* Note that claiming that God directly moves the Earth around the sun, is
  the same as equating God with physical law.  This is either a pantheistic
  or a panenthiestic theology, depending, of course, on the particulars.

** Why do Creationists repeatedly fail to see that their is no relevant
   distinction between natural processes such as Earth's orbitting the
   Sun and those that drive evolution?  Or more succinctly, why the false
   distinction between origins-related science on one hand and all other
   science on the other?

*** Why do I feel that Chuck Maier, Drew Larson, and others of their ilk will
    find this to be an unsatisfactory answer?  Could it be that they are so
    jaded by the everyday miraculous that they cease to recognize it as such?
    If so, what a sad theistic religion they have bought into.

--
Matt Brinkman		       "Sometimes you win.  Sometimes you lose,
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov	Sometime it rains.  Think about it."
Newsgroups: talk.origins