Evolution and Original Sin

[The_Barbarian]

I think one other kind of theistic evolution which is condemned is that which is based on classic “theism”.

Actually, this may the most common form of theistic evolution – it’s that of Kenneth Miller and some of the Catholics on these CAF evolutionary threads.

No, that’s wrong. The Pope, for example, has said that it is an acceptable form of evolution.

I think that kind of theistic evolution is indistinguishable from atheistic evolution.

It would be, I guess, for those who don’t think it matters whether or not God exists. Is that the problem, Reggie?

In fact, its defenders will say just that – that evolution does not need to include God, no more than mathematics or chemistry does.

So the Pope has said. In fact, he wrote that people who try to use science to draw conclusions about God are going beyond the proper scope of science.

So, in that belief system, God has no discernable effect on the processes in nature. God is remote from nature.

You have to remember, Reggie, that God is intimately connected with every aspect of nature. I hope you don’t really believe what you’re saying here; if so, you’re advocating a kind of deism.

Again, it’s identical to the atheistic view except to say that God “started” things.

Yep. You’re talking about deism, not the sort of theistic evolution Kenneth Miller and Pope Benedict are talking about.

I think any believer must accept intelligent design theory at least to some extent.

If you weaken design to the point that it only means “intent.” Otherwise, it is not consistent with Christian believe, since it requires that God be less than omnipotent.

 

[Camron]

I think one other kind of theistic evolution which is condemned is that which is based on classic “theism”.

Are you sure you’re not referring to Deism?

Actually, this may be the most common form of theistic evolution – it’s that of Kenneth Miller and some of the Catholics on these CAF evolutionary threads.

I wasn’t aware of any documents put forth by the Church which warned against Miller’s writings. I’ve read good portions of his book as well and have trouble finding anything wrong with it.

What exactly are you referring to? If you have a link I would be interested in reading it.

I think that kind of theistic evolution is indistinguishable from atheistic evolution. In fact, its defenders will say just that – that evolution does not need to include God, no more than mathematics or chemistry does.

But I think that’s part of the problem. I don’t think that one can use science to definitively measure God’s actions within His creation, excepting miraculous events which utterly defy physics as we know them.

So, in that belief system, God has no discernable effect on the processes in nature. God is remote from nature. Again, it’s identical to the atheistic view except to say that God “started” things. Atheists merely argue that things started in some other manner other than God’s creative will. In either case, the results of evolution or observations of nature do not show any indication that a supreme intelligence created or guided anything.

Do the results of evolution (or observations of nature) show any indication that a supreme intelligence created or guided anything?

As I see it, that’s the worst danger with theistic evolution. (At least that particular brand of it)

Again, do the results of evolution (or observations of nature) show any indication that a supreme intelligence created or guided anything?

What exactly does science indicate?

How exactly do we use science to vindicate Biblical passages such as Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 for example?

I’m very much willing to listen. But I just don’t see the direct connection between science and faith on this one.

I think any believer must accept intelligent design theory at least to some extent.

I think part of the problem is a semantics issue with the word design itself. Many seem to think that design necessarily means experimentation. But that’s looking at it from a distinctly human perspective.

I think I could just as likely call God a designer in the sense that He arranged (and even engineered) all things so that life evolved as we see it unfolding throughout the Earth’s history. Again, I really don’t have a problem with this, precisely because I recognize that God (even if He is called a “designer”) is really more than a mere artificer. He literally embodies the principles that creation itself has unfolded from so that when one perceives God’s creation, looking at the deepest sense of the mysterious nature of creation itself, one cannot help but be awed into concluding that some mind must be at work behind it.

But this divinely inspired conclusion is far removed from the one that the ID movement espouses because the ID movement really does seem to be claiming to have scientific proof of a mind greater than our own involved in our origins and creation. I don’t honestly think that science has proved this to the point that they claim, even if I do nonetheless perceive (by power of the Holy Spirit) a Supreme Mind at work behind the physical creation we see around us.

 

[Camron]

No, that’s wrong. The Pope, for example, has said that it is an acceptable form of evolution.

I agree with you on this one Barbarian. I too am not aware of any condemnation of Miller’s writings. I thought what he advanced in support of the TE movement was very concise and to the point without falling into the errors of Deism.

He even had a section in his book (Finding Darwin’s God) which addressed this very issue, specifically pointing to the development of a child in the womb and the evolution of life on Earth.

Can anyone use science to clearly prove that God is developing a child in the womb?

Clearly any Christian would admit that even though God is developing a child in the womb, He is still nonetheless using purely biological processes to do so. The same principle holds true with evolution too.

I must confess that I am confused with reggie’s claim on this point. God can use (and does use) contingent processes to accomplish His will, working according to His purpose. There’s simply no denying this aspect from a Catholic perspective. And He does this all the time too.

 

[reggieM]

Are you sure you’re not referring to Deism?

I’m sorry, that’s right, thanks. My mistake

But I think that’s part of the problem. I don’t think that one can use science to definitively measure God’s actions within His creation, excepting miraculous events which utterly defy physics as we know them.

Ok, well I disagree here.

Do the results of evolution (or observations of nature) show any indication that a supreme intelligence created or guided anything?

I believe that observations of nature do show that – as St. Paul taught in his Epistle, and the American founders wrote in the Bill of Rights.

Again, do the results of evolution (or observations of nature) show any indication that a supreme intelligence created or guided anything?

I think you asked that already and my answer is “yes”. Apparently, you do not believe that there is any evidence in nature or the universe that God exists – right?

What exactly does science indicate?

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your question.

How exactly do we use science to vindicate Biblical passages such as Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 for example?

As scientists of the past did.

He literally embodies the principles that creation itself has unfolded from so that when one perceives God’s creation, looking at the deepest sense of the mysterious nature of creation itself, one cannot help but be awed into concluding that some mind must be at work behind it.

This doesn’t seem to follow from your apparent denial that God’s presence can be observed in nature in any way.

But this divinely inspired conclusion is far removed from the one that the ID movement espouses because the ID movement really does seem to be claiming to have scientific proof of a mind greater than our own involved in our origins and creation. I don’t honestly think that science has proved this to the point that they claim, even if I do nonetheless perceive (by power of the Holy Spirit) a Supreme Mind at work behind the physical creation we see around us

Aside from the claims of ID theory itself, what do you mean by “you perceive a Supreme Mind at work”?

 

[reggieM]

Clearly any Christian would admit that even though God is developing a child in the womb, He is still nonetheless using purely biological processes to do so. The same principle holds true with evolution too.

What do you mean by “purely biological processes”? Depending on what that is, I would either agree or not. I think I would disagree given how you phrased it.

God can use (and does use) contingent processes to accomplish His will, working according to His purpose. There’s simply no denying this aspect from a Catholic perspective. And He does this all the time too.

I don’t think you understood the point I was trying to make. You’re answering a different point here as in your previous post.

But to clarify, I think you’re saying that there is no evidence in nature or the universe that there was any supreme intelligence involved in the creation/evolution/development of anything that can be observed – right?

If yes, then my point was that the presence of God cannot be perceived in nature, etc. There would be no need to posit a “creator God” or a God of “divine providence” who guides and directs processes. This is compatible (identical) with the atheistic position – on this point.

The point where it differs is in the notion that God “started” things – but again, there’s no evidence that God was necessary to “start” any of the processes – because nothing in nature exhibits characteristics of “designed things”.

They could have been created entirely by accident, in a universe where there is no God and no supreme intelligence guiding things.

The theistic evolutionary objection to this is that “nothing would exist” if there wasn’t a God. But again, this point cannot (apparently) be validated by any evidence at all. It’s just an assertion that there is a God – and the role that this God had was to “create” the starting of things which all appear to be created by accident.

In my view, the Privileged Planet among a number of ID-oriented books refute that idea.

 

[Doug50]

“Intelligent design” criticized in Vatican newspaper
ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/XX/280_intelligent_design_criticize_1_20_2006.asp

 

[reggieM]

In his L’Osservatore Romano article, Facchini wrote, "If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another …

That sounds like very good advice. Many do find the model proposed by Darwin to be insufficient.

 

[Doug50]

If yes, then my point was that the presence of God cannot be perceived in nature, etc. There would be no need to posit a “creator God” or a God of “divine providence” who guides and directs processes. This is compatible (identical) with the atheistic position – on this point.

On a pure scientific means that is absolutely correct. But if you could find evidence of God in natural processes then there would be no need to posit Faith.

The theistic evolutionary objection to this is that “nothing would exist” if there wasn’t a God. But again, this point cannot (apparently) be validated by any evidence at all. It’s just an assertion that there is a God – and the role that this God had was to “create” the starting of things which all appear to be created by accident.

God let’s Himself known through Faith and the Light of Reason. You find Him by way of the interior life of yourself and others. Through the Heart

 

[Doug50]

That sounds like very good advice. Many do find the model proposed by Darwin to be insufficient.

don’t selective quote to make it look like the somebody else you are quoting is holding a position that is contrary to their true held beliefs.

 

[Camron]

I’m sorry, that’s right, thanks. My mistake.

No problem. I just wanted to make sure I understood the position your were taking.

Ok, well I disagree here.

But why do you disagree, that’s the part I’m trying to figure out.

I believe that observations of nature do show that – as St. Paul taught in his Epistle, and the American founders wrote in the Bill of Rights.

I believe that observations of nature do show that too – as St. Paul taught in his Epistle, and the American founders wrote in the Bill of Rights. But the founders of the Bill of Rights (in America) understood these truths to be self-evident. So did Paul as far as I’m aware.

In other words, they did not believe that science was required to see this. They believed that you could know some things were true even if you could not empirically verify its truthfulness, a drawing on Natural Law to be exact.

According to Aquinas, the natural law is a “participation of the eternal law in the rational creature.” And “the eternal law” is the supreme act of (practical) reason by which an omnipotent and omnibenevolent Creator freely orders the whole of His creation. Thus, the natural law is a part of the rational plan by which God providentially governs the created order.

I suspect that Paul (and possibly even the American founders of the Bill of Rights, albeit working from a position of Deism) incorporated this same thinking precisely because the believed it sincerely. They may have also fore-saw the day when they thought that scientifically minded people would attempt to reduce everything to scientific principles, principles which, as far as I’m aware, cannot directly prove God exists. And, to be honest, I think many in the United States (on both sides of the debate) have totally lost sight of this wisdom too.

I think you asked that already and my answer is “yes”. Apparently, you do not believe that there is any evidence in nature or the universe that God exists – right?

No. I believe that there is plenty of evidence in nature (indeed the whole universe) that God exists. I just don’t believe that one can use scientific principles to verify this evidence.

As scientists of the past did.

Yes. And many of these scientists also believed these truths were self-evident, just as your founding fathers did.

Consequently, I think Francis Bacon is probably one of the best examples of how one could distinguish between God and nature. I think the theistic framework is the safest framework to work from precisely because the theistic scientist is constantly attempting to discern truth from untruth by discerning that which is God from that which is not God.

This doesn’t seem to follow from your apparent denial that God’s presence can be observed in nature in any way.

I can see Him and you can see Him. But I don’t think we can take a photograph of Him even though we clearly see Him. He is the invisible God is He not?

Aside from the claims of ID theory itself, what do you mean by “you perceive a Supreme Mind at work”?

I’m saying that I perceive that all of creation has been orientated toward (and clearly finds it purpose in) the coming of Christ. I don’t think that I can be any clearer on this but I will explain this further if you wish.

It starts with this…

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

 

[Camron]

On a pure scientific means that is absolutely correct. But if you could find evidence of God in natural processes then there would be no need to posit Faith.

But what of the Light of Reason?

God let’s Himself known through Faith and the Light of Reason. You find Him by way of the interior life of yourself and others. Through the Heart

Bingo!

Quick question: Does the light of reason require faith?

Reggie, this is coming back to the image of the invisible God I was quoting before. In particular, it’s leading toward a latent image which must be developed within the interior part of the soul to be made visible to the world around us.

We are, after all, created in God’s image. And we are indeed part of God’s creation too. We have inherited our physical nature from the Earth but we have inherited our souls from the breath of God.

Now how exactly do you think that people see God in creation according to Romans 1 and Wisdom 13 for example?

Have you ever noticed how a majority of humanity, unlike all the other animals, has this distinct habit of anthropomorphizing all of God’s creation into its own image and likeness, relating to things as if they were human?

For example, if our computer breaks down I might talk to it as if it were human and even yell at it as if it were conscious and capable of responding to my anger. This is an example of how we tend to anthropomorphize the things we interact with even though we know full well these inanimate objects are not conscious and sentient.

I think being created in the image of God somewhat applies to this human tendency anthropomorphize inanimate objects too, but it’s a divine tendency inherited directly from God (we find this fulfilled in procreation and raising children – not in animating inanimate objects). In God’s case (the image we were formed in the image and likeness of) God is able to anthropomorphize the very Earth into His own image and likeness simply by speaking to it. We don’t have this ability because we are not God (see the reference to procreation above). But I think you understand me on this one.

Humanity, unlike a vast majority of animals in the world (although there are some exceptions), also possesses an amazing ability to convey our sentience through inanimate objects too, so much so that we can make various tools to “extend our being” through the tools we employ. For example, when we use a computer, we are again imprinting our conscious thoughts into some artifact which is capable of being transmitted along a long path of communications to another person so that they can understand us. We are not literally sending our essence thought the tools we use and the mediums of communication we employ because we are not God. But, again, I think you understand me on this one. At least I hope you understand where I’m going with this.

The other animals might have some ability to “extend their presence” with tools (in very rare and exceptional cases). But they totally lack the ability to anthropomorphize the things they interact with into their own likeness and image. The Light of Reason, a quality which is also apparently lacking in the animals, nearly completes these three-fold human qualities.

And I think that when we mix this tendency to “extend our being” through the tools we employ with our tendency anthropomorphize the things we interact with “into our own likeness”, and when we combine these tendencies with the God given Light of Reason which God Himself has endowed us with, I think we display the major qualities which find their meaning which can only be fulfilled in Christ. They are qualities which are directly attributable to God’s Spirit and indeed show throughout all of creation that God indeed does exist.

There’s more to this. But that’s how I see it anyway.

Think about it.

 

[marksbaird0211]

As I’ve been watching and reading all sorts of Richard Dawkin’s lately (in order to better understand atheistic evolution) I have come up with a few questions. I understand that evolution is not entirely exclusive or contradictory with Theism and that the Church even recognizes its possibility.

The scientific argument for evolution is pretty significant and hard to refute. I am comfortable with atheism except for one very large question.

If Genesis says that all sin (and thus death) entered the world through the original sin of mankind how could natural selection (dependant on death) have taken place before man existed and brought man into existence itself?

Also, I just can’t shake the idea that evolution and natural selection are dependant on, and in some ways, glorify death. It all just doesn’t seem right, but then again the evidence does seem pretty substantial.

St Anslem writes about ontolgy, if a person knows of God even if refuting the existence, it negates the point that God does not exist. But with evolution, ie: natural selection, it is a fact that does not deny the existence of God but supports His existence.
St Thomas Aquianis also has the 5 proofs of Gods existence, the first is the prime mover, time moves forward therefore there must have been a begining, big bang theory etc… before that God, the creator. Anyway keep thinking about God, and remember the grace converts the most hardhearted believer.

 

[masterjedi747]

edwest2;3789955:

In evolutionary theory, random mutation equals chance, which, supposedly, a totally unconcerned “nature” selects. Random mutation + natural selection = human beings. I don’t think that works.

Without God there is no chance. But with God all things are possible, including random mutation + natural selection = human beings (cf., evolution).

…that’s what I’m thinking too.

The tricky part is just making sure we all have the same understanding of what “chance” and “random” mean. I think everyone would agree that a truly “chance” or “random” event is inherently unpredictable (with any significant level of certainty)… but is it caused? The atheist, I think, is left with only two options: [1] believe that the universe is absolutely deterministic, and preserve an unbroken chain of cause and effect in nature, or [2] believe that something can come from nothing, and allow for absolute uncaused randomness in nature.

Both of these positions contain deep philosophical flaws, however: option [1] effectively denies human freedom, and leaves room for nothing more than the “watchmaker” God of the Deists. Option [2], on the other hand… is just absurd; violating “something cannot come from nothing” is always a bad idea.

The theist, however, has a third option, however crazy it might sound: Mind. An intellect that that has free will, and can make choices. Give me two options, and I will pick one of them… the outcome will be, in some sense, random or chance. Not the absurd “absolute uncaused randomness” of the atheist, but simply an unpredictable randomness. You have absolutely no way of predicting with certainty which option I will choose, because I have free will. I can pick whichever one I want. But this does not mean that my choice is finally uncaused… there is still a cause. I pick the option that I want to pick, for the sake of whatever good I choose.

So, if God chooses to produce which mutation at which time (“random mutation”… random being the unpredictable result of His free will), and if He also works through nature (“natural selection”)… then yes, Random Mutation + Natural Selection = Human Beings (leaving aside the infusion of the spiritual soul) is a valid scenario, since God is intrinsically involved.

Camron;3791061:

The only forms of theistic evolution which I think the Church does indeed condemn are… those that profess toward some form of process theology

(which actually dares to claim that Himself didn’t actually know what would happen in the future).
I think one other kind of theistic evolution which is condemned is that which is based on classic “deism”.

I think that kind of theistic evolution is indistinguishable from atheistic evolution. …it’s identical to the atheistic view except to say that God “started” things.

No arguments here. The next part, however…

Actually, this may the most common form of theistic evolution – it’s that of Kenneth Miller and some of the Catholics on these CAF evolutionary threads.

No. Ken Miller does not subscribe to “deistic evolution”. In fact, he spends at least an entire chapter of his book discussing the collapse of Deism, and agreeing with those whose faith requires the belief in a God who is active in the universe today.

The only difficulties I ran into with Ken Miller’s book were related to the fact that his philosophy simply isn’t quite as solid his science… he’s much more vague on his treatment of chance and unpredictability than I would have liked. One of his examples, in particular, still stands out in my mind: when two kids flip a coin for a piece of pizza, he claims that the coin flip is a truly chance event, but also that God (although He knows what the outcome will be) doesn’t actually determine the outcome of this chance event… and I have no idea what this means. Maybe he’s leaving the possibility open for the free will of angels to influence the coin flip, or maybe he’s deliberately being vague in order to appeal to the broadest range of people reading his book. Worst case, he’s simply mistaken in believing that a chance event is a sort of “uncaused” (something-from-nothing) event, in which case I would absolutely have to disagree with him on that one point. I have no idea. The simple solution, of course, is Divine Providence, and I have no idea why he didn’t rely more on that, because I think he should have. But those were about the only difficulties I ran into, and that said, I do think he manages to scrape by with enough to support his argument… just not much more.

 

[ricmat]

So, if God chooses to produce which mutation at which time (“random mutation”… random being the unpredictable result of His free will), and if He also works through nature (“natural selection”)… then yes, Random Mutation + Natural Selection = Human Beings (leaving aside the infusion of the spiritual soul) is a valid scenario, since God is intrinsically involved.

This portion of your post is actually very similar to my position. I would disagree only in the definition of “random.” If God wills something to be so, then it is so. It doesn’t happen accidentally, or without God’s foreknowledge (as the infamous Fr. George Coyne once remarked). God would know for sure which mutation would need done at a particular time, and cause it to happen - else, we wouldn’t be here. Nor would the universe be here (when speaking about cosmological “evolution.”)

 

[reggieM]

On a pure scientific means that is absolutely correct. But if you could find evidence of God in natural processes then there would be no need to posit Faith.

I disagree here. Certainly, we can reflect on the life of Christ and notice how He taught people and how He built up faith in them. He provided evidence – but Faith was still required.

God let’s Himself known through Faith and the Light of Reason. You find Him by way of the interior life of yourself and others. Through the Heart

This is a means of observation. Additionally, it is not the only way that God let’s Himself be known. I think we have a lot of evidence in the Scripture – from Moses’ first experience through the story of the Exodus especially. But again, the life of Christ gives many indications of how He showed Himself to be the Son of God.

As I see it, there was more than just a reflection interiorly. There was observable evidence.

 

[reggieM]

don’t selective quote to make it look like the somebody else you are quoting is holding a position that is contrary to their true held beliefs.

What I did show with that quote is that the author proposed that one could seek an alternative theory if evolution is not adequate.

I think that was precisely his opinion. Why else would he say that?

 

[reggieM]

Thus, the natural law is a part of the rational plan by which God providentially governs the created order.

I’m struggling to understand your view on this – and perhaps you’re struggling a bit to explain it also (I’m not sure).

With the above definition of the natural law, I believe it is saying that the natural law is part of “the rational plan” by which God governs the created “order”.

As I see it, this is something that can be observed. The natural law that governs things – especially in human life – is a reflection of a supreme intelligence. This is understood through empirical evidence. That’s the classic teleological view. I’m not sure if you’re completely rejecting that.

No. I believe that there is plenty of evidence in nature (indeed the whole universe) that God exists. I just don’t believe that one can use scientific principles to verify this evidence.

What kind of evidence in nature would not be subject to scientific analysis?

I can see Him and you can see Him. But I don’t think we can take a photograph of Him even though we clearly see Him. He is the invisible God is He not?

Well, you offered a great quote … but we should reflect on the first line of it:

He is **the image **of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

With the Incarnation, we now have an Icon of God – the man-God who is Christ. So, we have the “image” of the invisible God.

But that’s a side point – more importantly, we can still say “yes, God is invisible”. But the standard ID argument is that “the works of God are visible”. In other words, we can see evidence of God in the works that he created.

The book,

The Privileged Planet

explores this. the evidence is provides is the “priviledged” nature of planet earth. It looks at all the amazing precision of earth’s place and condition in the universe, and how even a slight difference in a few aspects of the earth’s position would mean that life would never be able to survive on earth.

That’s one of many aspects that can be observed scientifically.

As Richard Dawkins says, “the universe appears as if it was designed”. This is something he discovered through observation.

I’m saying that I perceive that all of creation has been orientated toward (and clearly finds it purpose in) the coming of Christ. I don’t think that I can be any clearer on this but I will explain this further if you wish.

Again, I really don’t follow you here. I was probing your comment regarding what you see in creation. Perhaps you’re saying that the interpretation you give to creation and nature is not something that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. It’s an intuitive reflection – or as another poster said, it’s knowledge that comes in the interior life of a person only.

My concern with this is that it abstracts the interior life (or intuition) from the evidence that one can see in nature, or among other human beings. In my view, that makes religion like some kind of imagination or fantasy – divorced from reality and nature.

I don’t see that Darwinism has refuted the teleological argument (Paley’s Watchmaker) - that we can see the glory of God in nature. How can science describe this? First, by pointing out that Darwinism is a badly flawed method of understanding nature. Second, by indicating how “the universe appears as if it was designed” – by matching natural processes, laws and results two what we understand already as “designed things”.

 

[Nickkname]

Original Sin
Question from on 10-22-2007:

Dr. Geraghty,

I am currently reading Augustine in my Philosophy of Religion class, and am having difficulty with the notion of original sin. I understand how it could be a convincing Theodicy in his time, but am wondering how one would defend it in light of what we now know about the history of our planet. If we look at dinosaurs, for example, they were already living in a world of disease, carnivores, and natural disasters - long before the first man could have sinned. How do we interpret the doctrine of Original Sin in light of this?

Thanks, David

Answer by Richard Geraghty on 10-23-2007:

Dear David,

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the dinosaurs existed long before the first human pair, Adam and Eve. I assume that they were grass eaters and carnivores, that other kinds of animals lived and died. I make no assumption that the equivalent of lions and sheep lay down with each other eating grass. No. Lions still ate sheep. Now when Adam and Eve first appeared in the Garden of Eden, they had the special gift of immortality, unlike the other animals. They could not suffer and die because of God’s gift. But when they sinned, they lost the gift of being free of death and suffering. The other animals never had these gifts.

Dr. Geraghty

Source: ewtn.com/vexperts/showres…DESC&start_at=

 

[Camron]

This portion of your post is actually very similar to my position. I would disagree only in the definition of “random.” If God wills something to be so, then it is so. It doesn’t happen accidentally, or without God’s foreknowledge (as the infamous Fr. George Coyne once remarked). God would know for sure which mutation would need done at a particular time, and cause it to happen - else, we wouldn’t be here. Nor would the universe be here (when speaking about cosmological “evolution.”)

I think part of the problem in these scenarios is that what we consider “random” God has indeed “determined”. In other words, to us it appears random but to God it is not random at all.

Again I will quote these Biblical passages (with added emphasis of randomness in contrast to determined)…

In his heart a man plans his course (random), but the LORD determines his steps (determined).

Proverbs 16:9​

The lot is cast into the lap (random), but its every decision is from the LORD (determined).

Proverbs 16:33​

The last passage simply asserts that randomness does indeed happen. But even then God is certainly determining the happenstances behind the supposed randomness.

I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

Ecclesiastes 9:11​

The only randomness involved is the “chance” which God Himself provided for us. But even then He already knows what we have done with this chance which He offered to us, the chance that He provided for us.

Chance in itself is not evil. The chance that God provides is good.

Chance is not some indication that God is not in control. Chance is the very indication that God is in control.

He is in control regardless of whether we understand how He has accomplished His will or not.

 

[ricmat]

I think part of the problem in these scenarios is that what we consider “random” God has indeed “determined”. In other words, to us it appears random but to God it is not random at all.

Perhaps it doesn’t even appear random to us either - if we look carefully. Is there some law that says one can’t look for design?

Chance in itself is not evil. The chance that God provides is good.

Some people say that randomness replaces God as creator, with the corollary that God does not exist. That use of the concept of chance is evil.

Chance is not some indication that God is not in control.

I don’t recall saying that chance means that God is not in control. I’ve been accused, on the other hand, of saying that God is in too much control - i.e. interfering in his creation by directly causing mutations. Obviously, God is God and is always in control.

Chance is the very indication that God is in control.

Or perhaps evidence of a plan, a design, is the very indication that God is in control.