Father's Day, Part 2

In a perfect world we would not have the kind of "family" structures like you described, where children by multiple parents are scattered about. It is a very, very difficult situation. Why things like this occur I can only guess ... and my guess would be along the lines you described. People marry for a lot of different reasons, most of which aren't good reasons. My first marriage was definitely done out of fear that I would have no other opportunity. The psychology behind all that runs deep and dark, and would require at least two cigars and a few Guinness to unravel.

In my second marriage I have a glimmer of recognition -- though still dimly seen -- that marriage is first and foremost a covenant made before God. The gravity of that gives me pause. I suspect if more could understand that, we'd have marriages entered into a bit more carefully.

I, too, pray that the Lord would watch over your daughter, and guide her to understand what she needs to understand to navigate this life. I'm sure the Lord will use you as an instrument in that process.

* * *
A few years ago when I stood on the rim of the Grand Canyon and looked across the 10 mile width and 1 mile depth, I thought it absolutely impossible that such a thing could have been created by natural forces in 5,000 years. So for me to hold to the supposed Biblical account of creation and the age of the earth, I would have to either believe that God simply made the Grand Canyon as it is, or against all odds the Canyon was eroded in such a short period of time.

The former is certainly possible, but it begs all sorts of questions as to "Why?" The latter is beyond my ability to accept. The probability of it being formed in 5,000 years is too remote. But 4.5 billion years? The probability becomes acceptable.

I think there is something akin to this in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. The author of the PDF says that the odds are "vanishingly small" that the mechanism of natural selection could have produced some of the complexity we see. I don't know the equations they used to calculate those probabilities. I'm sure they're not total fiction, though I'm certain they're open to some debate. But as the mysteries and complexities of this world are better understood, I sense there's a growing awareness -- like me at the Grand Canyon -- that the random process of natural selection just could not have done it. The odds are just against it. Too many things would have to coincide in just the right way to provide even the smallest building blocks of life. That process would have to repeat over and over, without an intervening calamity to "reset" the process back to zero. Is the probability more than zero-point-zero? Yes. Is it anywhere near reasonably likely? To many, no.

You wrote, "but fails to appreciate that we do exist." I'm not so sure that's accurate. I think in going through the effort of arguing against the random chance probability of it all, he's pointing out the marvel of it all. As you say, "Intelligent life has arisen on Earth, somehow." To the intelligent design advocates, that "somehow" is provided through the guiding hand of a higher power. It sounds unscientific, but the whole of the supernatural is beyond science ... or science as we presently know it.

You ask two questions:

• Why do things appear to build up from less complex to more complex?
• Is the theory of Natural Selection predictive?

To the first question I'd say, "Good question!" I suppose the academic answer is that more complex structures have a better ability to survive and pass along their genetic material. But in my heart there's something that's saying, "But wait ... complexity usually implies fragility." We humans are remarkably fragile things. A one-cell virus, rapidly procreating, can kill us in days. A swarm of bees can kill us. We procreate very slowly, and we reach sustainable maturity very slowly. It is a miracle that so complex a thing as us exists. Why don't ants rule this world?

As to the second question, the only way it can be predictive is for us to make two broad assumptions: 1) what the random mutation will be, and 2) the chances of that mutation surviving and prospering. Both are sheer guesses. This is why I rail at those who "predict" that humans will evolve a certain way. First, we can't know what random mutation will come along, and second, in the complex realm of human interaction, marriage and procreation (see above), it's virtually impossible to suggest what features will provide reproductive advantage.

I'm not smart enough to follow all the arguments made in that PDF, and to know whether your critique of them is fair or not (though I'll say this -- I also didn't follow the "is a city irreducibly complex?" argument). But like when I stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon and came to the conclusion that there's little chance it was created in 5,000 years, I read about the marvelous complexity of something as "simple" as one of our cells, and I come to the conclusion that chance could not construct that. It was that realization some six years ago now that made me, for the first time, start seriously considering the existence of a creator God.

To think of a God that can create all this -- the vastness of it and the complexity of it -- and all the while be completely and fully aware of every aspect of it at all times ... is humbling. And then to seriously think of making a marriage vow in His presence sets the whole of marriage in a different light. At least to me.

But I think we've lost sight of the awesome nature of God. He's really George Burns in a movie, don't you know. :-(