Does evolution eliminate the need for a creator? 1

“So we are confronted with the following odd situation. On the one hand, there is an almost instinctive and overwhelming temptation to infer from the existence and nature of biological information that it has an intelligent origin. On the other hand, some of the very people who grant that the temptation is strong resist it because they are convinced that no designer is necessary; unguided mindless, evolutionary process can and did do it all.” P87

I’m sure Lennox thinks it an odd situation because he seems to think that knowledge comes from abduction and inference. As I said before, everything we know about the natural world, we know from science. Even Lennox tacitly admits this himself when he talks about the three areas where theism can have something to say about the natural world – the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the inner workings of the mind. There’s a reason why there’s no theistic theory of magnetism nor gravity but one for abiogenesis, and that’s because everyone would think you’re a loon if you said that prayer makes the needle turn or the ball drop whereas only some laugh at the thought that the first woman was made from the rib of the first man. There doesn’t have to be much of a gap to let god in.

And not only does theism have only a select few areas that it can say anything at all without looking just a little bit silly, when it has said something in the past it was never right, or at best not provable to be wrong (which is the same as being right for some theists). So those people who do hesitate to say that life is designed by a designer just because it looks so, do so with good reason. For they know that we know what we know today because scientists in the past didn’t gaze at the stars and say “they look like pinpricks in the curtain of night. Let’s go with that”.

One thought on “Does evolution eliminate the need for a creator? 1

  1. Marco

    I’m sure Lennox thinks it an odd situation because he seems to think that knowledge comes from abduction and inference
    Like I asked before is the “knowledge” that random mutations and selection are sufficient to explain all life, of the same gold standard of knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics? Because they are “scientific” hypotheses, can they equally be disproved overnight with new evidence?

    I dispute that much more than abduction and inference went into the insistence on the words “random”, and “mindless” in aspects of evolutionary dogma. I think it is bad science to jump the gun, and I agree with Lennox that it is necessitated by naturalist philosophy – not evidence, just as creation is necessitated by theistic philosophy. This does not help us to search for the answers to the origin of life. Lennox does explain scientifically why current models don’t explain what they say they explain. I come to a similar conclusion to Lennox- the scientific explanation for the origin of life comes completely from abduction and inference. The scientific explanation for speciation comes from our experience with observed genetic variability, and interpolation in the gaps of the fossil record. I still have a problem with insistence that mutations be completely random. That is a barrier to scientists looking for more sophistication that there almost certainly is.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s