What prevents evolution?
 

This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).

So let me pose this question. If you have:

a) Self-replicators organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and

b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and

c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and

d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then

Evolution is inevitable.

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution is inevitable


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.

[ QUOTE ]

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never made either of these statements. It's possible I've said evolution isn't science without qualifying it, but what I've meant and as far as I know have always said is atheistic evolution isn't science. There is no possible way any scientist can know whether or not God is ultimately responsible for any evolution that does occur. People like Dawkins say that evolution makes God unnecessary. People like Sagan say the cosmos is all there is, was or will be. These statements and others like them are unscientific.

Much depends on what you mean by evolution. I've said before no one I know doubts that black moths transform into white moths, that the beaks of finches change over time, that the modern horse is somewhat different from the prehistoric horse, etc.

At one level I seriously doubt what is sometimes called macro evolution which is basically that all life forms have a common ancestor. I see no way whatsoever this can be scientifically established. I think the fossil record tends to disprove this rather than prove it. If one of the requirements of science is that it make accurate predictions I don't see how the one common ancestor theory can ever rise above the theoretical level.

At another level, even this isn't the real issue. I take on the fossil record at times, especially the human fossil record, because I think it's bogus from what I've seen, and also because I really want to know if it does establish the descent of man from primates. I discuss other aspects of evolution as well. But these are all side issues. The only real issue that matters is the question of God. The Bible doesn't say that evolution didn't occur anymore than it says the earth is the center of the universe, the earth is not a sphere or the earth is 12000 years old. These are all errors in interpretation, sometimes reasonable errors, sometimes intentionally false misrepresentations. One of the problems is that the word evolution is a red flag. It has a history and stands for more than simple change in life forms. It's also often used in a vague, ill-defined and equivocal manner. The opponents are often talking about two different things. Also, many vocal evolutionists, like Dawkins, are also stridently anti-religious. They directly and indirectly assert that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. When you put it like that I will deny evolution every time.

I submit to you that if science got rid of its insistence on ascribing evolution to chance, if Dawkins would retire to a chicken farm, and if scientists would do science and stop preaching against a God they can never prove doesn't exist, much of the controversy between ID and evolution would disappear. I firmly believe there is no conflict whatsover between genuine science and genuine Bible interpretation.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

Heya NotReady,


I think your bove post makes your position eminently clear and whilst I diagree strongly with many of your conclusions (about evolution from primates and the single cell ancestor), I think you are missing the very point of much of the dabate between theists and those not so inclned here. Altough you allude to in a couple of ways.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no possible way any scientist can know whether or not God is ultimately responsible for any evolution that does occur. People like Dawkins say that evolution makes God unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two sentences above are quite different, I would say nearly apposite in meaning. Allow me to paraphrase them to put my interpretation of the meaning.
1. Science does not concern itself with the existence or not of such a thing as a god. Science concerns itself with natural laws (ie repeatable results).
2. The fact that evolution does make god unnecesary, does not say anything about its existence or absence. What will settle that question is faith.

The problem I see is when, for whatever reason, but I think mostly an insecurity vis-a-vis their "faith" or beliefs, theists start to argue that science does indicate a neccesity for a god. This is wrong. This is where they also loose the argument. There is a boundary between science and beliefs that ought to be kept intact for the survival of, both or either, imo.

As far as concerns for conflict between genuine science and genuine Bible interpretation, altough not a believer in any sense, as you probably know, it sorts of make sense that the interpretaion of the bible should be in accordance with what is observed even for a believer. Indeed to do anything else, would make for some very slippery and dangerous grounds.

Ok, that was my 2 cents worth. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I wished all theist brothers would post in as an itelligent manner as you do.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

I basically agree with what NR said (as usual), especially his last line. To phrase it slightly differently, the (intelligent) theist argument says that your conditions a,b,c, and d were created by God as part of intelligent design.

The problems arise when scientists claim that chance is an inherent component of the universe. I think NR is saying that "atheistic evolution" is evolution plus a belief about the primality of chance. This combination is not science, and when scientists claim it is, I believe they should have their credentials revoked for not understanding what science is and is not capable of establishing.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I basically agree with what NR said (as usual), especially his last line. To phrase it slightly differently, the (intelligent) theist argument says that your conditions a,b,c, and d were created by God as part of intelligent design.

The problems arise when scientists claim that chance is an inherent component of the universe. I think NR is saying that "atheistic evolution" is evolution plus a belief about the primality of chance. This combination is not science, and when scientists claim it is, I believe they should have their credentials revoked for not understanding what science is and is not capable of establishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hiya Darryl_P

The only thing, I think, a respectable scientist should say, is that chance is sufficient to explain what happens. To me it clearly does whith regard to evolution. Occam razor takes me to take the position that the simplest sufficient explanation is enough, therfore I do not need posit the idea of a creator, but I would argue against that idea on a different basis. I would argue against the existence of a god on a moral basis, not on a scientific one, as I have done, in other posts.

We seem to be in rough [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] consensus except on the matter of belief in God. Am I correct? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

G'day mate [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Yes I agree we are in rough consensus on this one, but I would change your word "sufficient" to "the best we have at the moment" because knowledge on something being sufficient implies no further study is needed. Science is all about never being satisfied with current levels of knowledge and constantly questioning everything we currently know in order to expand the frontiers of knowledge and thought. A true scientist should never say our knowledge is sufficient about anything. Or at the very least he should never claim that science establishes this sufficiency because it would show he does not understand the fundamental nature of science.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

Darryl_P,

Very happy with your correction. I have no problems with it. I was happy with "sufficient" without implying completeness.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

Well, I was going to make a response, but I think Midge has pretty much said what I wanted to say on the subject, except for this (from NotReady):

"I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype."

That is a subset of this:

d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

Borodog,

Interesting concept! You put reproductivity success ahead of adaptibility/suitability!? Or I am I missing something?

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

I just think it's two sides of the same coin, that's all.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

Interesting concept! You put reproductivity success ahead of adaptibility/suitability!? Or I am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't "adaptability/suitability" just another way of saying that something "stays alive long enough to breed offspring that can do the same?"

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

1. Science does not concern itself with the existence or not of such a thing as a god. Science concerns itself with natural laws (ie repeatable results).


[/ QUOTE ]

Science is a word much like evolution and Christianity. It is defined very differently by different people. It's often defined differently by the same people at different times.

[ QUOTE ]

2. The fact that evolution does make god unnecesary, does not say anything about its existence or absence.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't possible for evolution to make God unnecessary. A question - Is the statement that evolution makes God unnecessary itself a scientific statement?

[ QUOTE ]

theists start to argue that science does indicate a neccesity for a god.


[/ QUOTE ]

For science to mean anything, for there to even be science, God is necessary. If God created the universe, how could science be possible without God? There would be no universe and no one to study it.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

chance is sufficient to explain what happens.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chance is the antithesis of explanation. It is anti-explanation. It destroys the possibility of explanation. It is by definition irrational and uncaused. How does that explain anything?

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
For science to mean anything, for there to even be science, God is necessary. If God created the universe, how could science be possible without God? There would be no universe and no one to study it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this mean that if God did not create the Universe, He is then unnecessary to science? Your last sentence I don't even understand. If God created the Universe, there is no Universe?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chance is sufficient to explain what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chance is the antithesis of explanation. It is anti-explanation. It destroys the possibility of explanation. It is by definition irrational and uncaused. How does that explain anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds nice, but is meaningless. Chance is a perfectly good explanation. An electron beam passed through a Stern-Gerlach device and a particular electron is measured to be in the spin-up state. Why is it in the spin-up state and not spin-down? Chance. Chance explains this system perfectly.

This is beside the point that chance is only facet of evolution. Evolution may require random variation, but it only progress via non-random selection.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

If God created the Universe, there is no Universe?


[/ QUOTE ]

It should be obvious that if God created the universe then it's meaningless to talk about the universe without God. To do so denies God at the outset. It places possibility above God.

[ QUOTE ]

Chance explains this system perfectly.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the explanation?

[ QUOTE ]

but it only progress via non-random selection.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Does non-random mean designed?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see the problem? It's impossible for atheists to talk about evolution without relying on chance while still clinging to some form of design. Why not just say variation occurs, heck if I know why, instead of saying variation occurs by chance? They are equivalent except when you say chance you are implicitly saying God was not involved. But you can never know or prove that He wasn't. It's this approach that is mostly responsible for ID's growth.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

No, non-random does not mean designed. It means "non-random."

For example, the pebbles at the shore are jostled randomly by crashing ocean waves energetically tossing them about. Yet after the wave recedes the pebbles are arranged in a non-random pattern; smaller pebbles come to rest closer to the shore. This pattern does not arise because God is personally sorting the pebbles. It arises because of the laws of fluid dynamics. If you want to chose to believe that God wrote the laws, be my guest. I have no problem with that.

Selection is non-random not because anyone is doing the selecting, but mecause the selection process is inherently biased. Those variants that are better at surviving and reproducing will come to predominate numerically. Duh. How could it be otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just say variation occurs, heck if I know why, instead of saying variation occurs by chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we often know why, and it is often by chance. By chance an error is made copying a strand of DNA. A cosmic ray comes along by chance and hits a strand of DNA. Why do you hate chance so much?

[ QUOTE ]
They are equivalent except when you say chance you are implicitly saying God was not involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying any such thing. You are. And I don't really see why.

[ QUOTE ]
But you can never know or prove that He wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove God does or does not exist or was or was not involved. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist. It is impossible to prove that anything does not exist (especially anything that is by definition unobservable). All that matters is that He does not seem to be required to explain anything observable.

Does it matter if God is rolling the dice?

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Those variants that are better at surviving and reproducing will come to predominate numerically. Duh. How could it be otherwise?


[/ QUOTE ]

That just pushes the question back one notch.

[ QUOTE ]

Because we often know why, and it is often by chance


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't think of anything more circular.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying any such thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you are. If God is omnipotent chance doesn't exist. If chance exists, God doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove God does or does not exist or was or was not involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're just asserting a proposition that requires the non-existence of God.

[ QUOTE ]

Does it matter if God is rolling the dice?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty much the whole ball of wax.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is impossible to prove that anything does not exist

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. If you propose the existence of an entity or object whose existence would contradict known facts about the universe, it is impossible for that entity or object to exist. You CAN prove a negative if by assuming it's true, you contradict a known truth.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

I think of chance as saying "we just don't know". E.g., we calculate the odds in a card game, but there is some fact of the matter about the next card to come, we just don't know what it is. But it still makes sense to refer to it as a game of chance, because we don't know the outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
If God is omnipotent chance doesn't exist. If chance exists, God doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why this is, unless God created, by necessity, the best possible world out of any other. But certain things seem like they could be left to chance and have no bearing on morals, e.g., the position of electrons is neither 'good' nor 'bad'. God could plausibly have created a world in which no one, not even an omniscient being, could determine the outcome of certain events.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

midge. you seem to be fairly intelligent, but no, you are not in 'consensus' with dp. i am about to black out so i will not elaborate now...

how the he*l do you argue against the existence of God on a 'moral' basis?? that is horrendous. do you have any idea what you are implying? peace.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

borodog you are not half as bright as you think you are . i challenge you to a duel

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If God is omnipotent chance doesn't exist. If chance exists, God doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ on this one. Chance can exist without being ultimate. What if it's defined as something beyond current human understanding, without any speculation as to what lies beyond that, or what is ultimate? Surely you can say something is beyond our understanding, yet make models about what kinds of patterns we can recognize, without implying anything about what is primal or ultimate, can you not? I'd say the field of probability and statistics does just that.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think of chance as saying "we just don't know".


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this and have taken the same position in other posts.

If that's all someone means by random variation then they cannot maintain that evolution has made God unnecessary.

Chance in this sense isn't ultimate and doesn't produce an infinite number of possibilities.

And chance in this sense provides no explanation at all - as you said, it means "I don't know" which is the opposite of explanation.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Chance can exist without being ultimate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this and have said the same in other posts. What I mean here is that God is sovereign and there is no ultimate chance for Him. If there was, He wouldn't be God.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
borodog you are not half as bright as you think you are . i challenge you to a duel

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily not half as bright as I think I am seems to be sufficient.

By the way, I'm 91% on head shots from 65 feet. Still want to duel?

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think your premises establish this. You would need another one, somthing like - Some genetic differences produce advantageous survival characteristics in the phenotype.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype,

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God is omnipotent chance doesn't exist. If chance exists, God doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ on this one. Chance can exist without being ultimate. What if it's defined as something beyond current human understanding, without any speculation as to what lies beyond that, or what is ultimate? Surely you can say something is beyond our understanding, yet make models about what kinds of patterns we can recognize, without implying anything about what is primal or ultimate, can you not? I'd say the field of probability and statistics does just that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I struggle with this. If god is omnipotent then he can create a world in which things happen at random if he wants to (real random not just unknown). If he wants to decree that some particles will decay randomly with probability p in such a way that there is no way of knowing when it will decay then he can, cant he?

Of course he may not want to but thats a different matter.

chez

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

I agree. It always seems that theists get hung up on "chance" for reasons that I don't understand. If God wants to create a mechanism that works by chance, are the theists claiming he can't? I thought he was omnipotent?

Furthermore, I don't understand at all how a mechanism that works by chance violates God's omniscience, the other thing they get hung up on. Just because God knows the outcome beforehand, doesn't mean the outcome wasn't determined by chance, according to rules He created.

It seems to me that NotReady doesn't give his God very much credit.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If God created the Universe, there is no Universe?


[/ QUOTE ]

It should be obvious that if God created the universe then it's meaningless to talk about the universe without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what, the opposite is also true. If God didn't create the universe, then its meaningless to talk about the universe WITH god.

The statement "evolution makes god unessecary" says noting about his actual existance, it only makes option B - that is there is no god - just as valid as option A.

"Why not just say variation occurs, heck if I know why, instead of saying variation occurs by chance?"

chance is used in this sense to describe what effects the environment had. That is based upon a law that says every action has a reaction, one thing leads to another.

What must be taken on faith in both option A and option B is existance. Either the existance of the universe, or the existance of God. Since i have ample evidence that the universe exists, i will stick with that one.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

If he wants to decree that some particles will decay randomly with probability p in such a way that there is no way of knowing when it will decay then he can, cant he?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think so. I've posted this before but the real issue is God's sovereignty. He can do anything that isn't inconsistent with His nature, so to the extent that some element of chance doesn't encroach on His sovereignty it isn't theoretically objectionable. Whether He does or not is unknown.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that NotReady doesn't give his God very much credit


[/ QUOTE ]

I give Him a lot more than you do.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

If God didn't create the universe, then its meaningless to talk about the universe WITH god.


[/ QUOTE ]

If God didn't create the universe it's meaningless to talk about anything.

[ QUOTE ]

The statement "evolution makes god unessecary" says noting about his actual existance, it only makes option B - that is there is no god - just as valid as option A.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't because Option B destroys the possibility of validity.

[ QUOTE ]

chance is used in this sense to describe what effects the environment had. That is based upon a law that says every action has a reaction, one thing leads to another.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't got a clue what this means.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If he wants to decree that some particles will decay randomly with probability p in such a way that there is no way of knowing when it will decay then he can, cant he?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think so. I've posted this before but the real issue is God's sovereignty. He can do anything that isn't inconsistent with His nature, so to the extent that some element of chance doesn't encroach on His sovereignty it isn't theoretically objectionable. Whether He does or not is unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why cant god give up some sovereignty if he want to?

chez

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why cant god give up some sovereignty if he want to?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a theoretical question about which I cannot be dogmatic. There is no indication in the Bible that God would ever do so and much that indicates He won't - such as verses that say He controls whatever comes to pass as well as prophecies He guarantees will happen but which He couldn't guarantee if He gave up sovereignty. How could He be sure He would defeat Satan in the end if He stopped being God? And that's the theoretical problem - if God is defined as absolute, if He gives up sovereignty He's no longer absolute and thus no longer God.

In one previous post I mentioned the possibility, from a theoretical standpoint only, that He could allow for an event to occur which He doesn't absolutely control so long as He controls the effect of the event. For instance, He may not care if you and I flip a quarter and take no action concerning the result. But if we are both kings of countries and agree the coin flip will determine whether we go to war then He would probably either control the outcome of the flip or override our decision if He wanted to, so that whether it was war or peace, God would be overseeing the result.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why cant god give up some sovereignty if he want to?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is a theoretical question about which I cannot be dogmatic. There is no indication in the Bible that God would ever do so and much that indicates He won't - such as verses that say He controls whatever comes to pass as well as prophecies He guarantees will happen but which He couldn't guarantee if He gave up sovereignty. How could He be sure He would defeat Satan in the end if He stopped being God? And that's the theoretical problem - if God is defined as absolute, if He gives up sovereignty He's no longer absolute and thus no longer God.

[/ QUOTE ]
ok but thats a reason why you believe he wouldn't want to give up sovereignty. It still means he could give it up if he wanted to.

Why cant he suspend sovereignty for a period of time or over some set of events knowing that on his return he can defeat satan?

chez

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

"It isn't because Option B destroys the possibility of validity."

So your postition on this issue is that life is meaningless without god?

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

ok but thats a reason why you believe he wouldn't want to give up sovereignty. It still means he could give it up if he wanted to.


[/ QUOTE ]


It isn't just an opinion. It involves the difficulty of how He could guarantee anything since He wouldn't be God any longer. But to me this question is little more than asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. He isn't going to give up any sovereignty that would make any creature more sovereign than Him, which really means He isn't giving up sovereignty. He won't abdicate.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why cant god give up some sovereignty if he want to?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a theoretical question about which I cannot be dogmatic. There is no indication in the Bible that God would ever do so and much that indicates He won't - such as verses that say He controls whatever comes to pass as well as prophecies He guarantees will happen but which He couldn't guarantee if He gave up sovereignty. How could He be sure He would defeat Satan in the end if He stopped being God? And that's the theoretical problem - if God is defined as absolute, if He gives up sovereignty He's no longer absolute and thus no longer God.

In one previous post I mentioned the possibility, from a theoretical standpoint only, that He could allow for an event to occur which He doesn't absolutely control so long as He controls the effect of the event. For instance, He may not care if you and I flip a quarter and take no action concerning the result. But if we are both kings of countries and agree the coin flip will determine whether we go to war then He would probably either control the outcome of the flip or override our decision if He wanted to, so that whether it was war or peace, God would be overseeing the result.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope God will read this by next Friday.

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ok but thats a reason why you believe he wouldn't want to give up sovereignty. It still means he could give it up if he wanted to.


[/ QUOTE ]


It isn't just an opinion. It involves the difficulty of how He could guarantee anything since He wouldn't be God any longer. But to me this question is little more than asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. He isn't going to give up any sovereignty that would make any creature more sovereign than Him, which really means He isn't giving up sovereignty. He won't abdicate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I cant see your analogy with angles on pins. This goes to the heart of your whole argument about god as I understand it.

meaning -> omnipotent god -> things dont happen by chance

This seems to be wrong because an omnipotent god can allow many things to happen by chance. In particular god could allow evolution by chance knowing full well that evolution (a process designed by an omnipotent being) plus the occasional intervention would eventually result in creatures capable of recognising his existence.

None of that threatens gods existence as god, how could it?

chez

Re: What prevents evolution?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I cant see your analogy with angles on pins. This goes to the heart of your whole argument about god as I understand it.


[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is I don't believe He does give up any of His sovereignty so the question is moot - pointless, like the question about angels. It's also unanswerable and moot for that reason as well. It's a hypothetical question to which we can't know the answer so it makes little difference what we say about it.

[ QUOTE ]

This seems to be wrong because an omnipotent god can allow many things to happen by chance. In particular god could allow evolution by chance knowing full well that evolution (a process designed by an omnipotent being) plus the occasional intervention would eventually result in creatures capable of recognising his existence


[/ QUOTE ]

I've already said there's a sense in which I don't disagree with this. But the chance element in evolution, if it did exist, would ultimately be under the control of God and would therefore affect only non-essential things (and God would define what is and isn't essential). So He might allow chance to decide whether a particular species survives if it doesn't matter to His overall plan, but if that species is integral to His plan He would guarantee its survival. No different than the coin flip example I gave. The bottom line is God is in control and nothing happens outside His will.