Archive for the ‘theistic evolution’ Category

Our number came up in the Monte Carlo game

September 8, 2009

We would like to think of ourselves as necessary, inevitable, ordained from all eternity. All religions, nearly all philosophies, and even a part of science testify to the unwearying, heroic effort of mankind desperately denying his own contingency. …The universe was not pregnant with life nor the biosphere with man. Our number came up in the Monte Carlo game. Is it any wonder if, like the person who has just made a million at the casino, we feel strange and a little unreal?… then man must at last wake out of his millenary dream; and in doing so wake to his total solitude, his fundamental isolation. Now does he at last realize that, like a gypsy, he lives at the boundary of an alien world. A world that is deaf to his music, just as indifferent to his hopes as to his suffering or his crimes… If it is true, as I believe, that the fear of solitude and the need for a complete and binding explanation are inborn—that this heritage from the remote past is not only cultural but probably genetic too—can one imagine such an ethics as this, austere, abstract, proud, calming that fear, satisfying that need? I do not know.

The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor his duty.

Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, 1971

Evolution robs man of significance

September 8, 2009

It has also been shown that purpose and plan are not characteristic of organic evolution and are not a key to any of its operations. Man was certainly not the goal of evolution, which evidently had no goal. He was not planned, in an operation wholly planless.

G.G. Simpson

We are survival machines

September 7, 2009

‘We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules (of DNA) known as genes.’

This is gene selectionism rigorously applied to define man. It is laudable of Dawkins that he is consistent.

The only purpose of life is DNA survival: a person is nothing more than than DNA’s way of making more DNA like itself.

In brief, gene selection theory posits that particular types of genes improve their own chances for survival by making, or improving, organisms that are themselves good at surviving and reproducing. Natural Selection ensures that the world will be determined by those types of genes that happen to be good at making plants and animals that are good at passing their genes on to descendents.

Philip Johnson, Testing Darwinism, IVP, 1997, p.69-70

Evolution is antithetical to the God of the Bible

August 17, 2009

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

1995 statement of American National Association of Biology Teachers, in Testing Darwinism, Philip E. Johnson, IVP, 1997, p.15

Johnson continues:

Then they say that the teaching of evolution/science (they equate the two, because evolution is a fact not a philosophy) is a separate domain from religion (which you’re free to hold if you like). But to say the above statement, ‘unsupervised, impersonal’,  has nothing to do with religion is to impose a view of God (Deism) that theists cannot accept. If God is not involved, supervising etc., then he hardly deserves our worship or even attention.


Theistic Evolution

August 7, 2009

When Darwinists say that their theory does not deny “the existence of God” and claim that they are saying nothing about “religion,” they usually mean that they are willing to allow deism as a possibility for people who are unwilling to give up God altogether. Many evolutionary naturalists see no harm in making this concession, because a God who confines his activity to the ultimate beginning of time is unimportant to human lives…
The important question is not whether God “exists”; it is whether God cares about us, and whether we need to care about God’s purposes. Deism answers no to these questions. For that reason even George Gaylord Simpson found deism to be perfectly consistent with his Darwinian doctrine that our true creator is a purposeless material system.

Philip Johnson, Defeating Darwinism  (IVP, 1997)  pp. 16-7