You're right. They don't need to be. But they are.
How would we know that? Perhaps they are random only as far as we know. How could we distinguish between "random" and "occurs by virtue of God's decision which he makes according to inscrutable reasons of his own"?
Well then you'd be correct. In the case of evolution, environmental pressures are non-random. Genetic mutations are.
Again, why can't I affirm that the mutations are not really random but occur as a result of God's planning or directing, the reasons for which are simply beyond us (either just in fact or in principle)?
What reason would there be for God not to take the most efficient, direct pathway?
What makes you think he didn't? Is there a more efficient way to create a universe with sentient creatures with the moral capacity to responsibly care for creation and freely love each other and God? How could anyone claim to know that there's a better way without displaying the most disgusting and heinous hubris?
And why should God care about efficiency and directness? Here you presume that God's values perfectly match those of the bureaucrat. Why presume that?
Not to the extent humans are concerned.
You didn't read Romans 8, did you? <sigh>
There is no such thing as atheistic evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not include a God. But that does not make it atheistic. Do you believe in ATHEISTIC gravity? Or is there a theistic version I'm unaware of? If so, why don't you believe in theistic gravity?
No, I don't believe in atheistic gravity. Gravity is theistic in the sense that gravity describes God's typical activity in the universe. What else could it do if you're a theist? God created all (other) things and bestowed on them the properties they have. God upholds all things in existence. Thus gravity becomes an expression of God's (highly generalized and impersonalized) will for creation. It behaves this way because he wants it to.
By "atheistic evolution" I mean to say that the metaphysical assumption you are operating with is atheistic. If you're an atheist, evolution has one meaning; if you're a theist, it has another related but slightly different one. For the athiest, evolution cannot have a cause for the mutations nor a purposive direction. For the theist it can have the first and must have the second. Either way, the nuts and bolts of evolutionary theory remain the same. Either way, we have evolutionary mechanisms. On a theistic understanding, these mechanisms are not independent of the will of God.
No, it's called Theistic Evolution because people are uncomfortable with humans rising up as a combination of random genetic mutation and environmental processes and evolution conflicts with some people's version of God. How, depends on their theology. So theistic evolution is simply the Theory of Evolution with the bald assertion that God was the originator. This is unsupported. But the Theory of Evolution is.
Well, the "theistic" part of theistic evolution isn't scientific. So it's no surprising that it is unsupported by science. It needn't be. It's a theological aspect to the theory and therefore needs to be evaluated in different terms.
Ergo, if you go by the Theory of Evolution, it's an undeniable fact. If you include a bald, unsupported assertion, then that will clearly take you down a different trail.
Be careful about these "undeniable" facts. They tend to change on us. So I only accept the
provisional undeniability of ToE. As for the "bald, unsupported assertion" of theism, I beg to differ. I think there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, but those arguments are unimportant for our current purposes. You said that "theistic evolution" makes no sense on a monotheistic understanding of God. I have been arguing that the idea of evolution is not incompatible with Christian theism. The notion of evolution changes slightly with the addition of divine actions and purposes, but it's important to see that these changes don't change the nature of the scientific game. Even if theistic evolution were true, scientists could still go about their business as they always have done. They look for patterns, natural laws, and so forth. From a theistic perspective, this is exactly what we should expect given that God has created an ordered universe in order to support life.
You would argue that God has purposely created harmful mutations? Your point, not mine...
Whenever you design something, you begin with a list of desiderata -- what you want the end product to be like. During production, you may find that some of these desiderata conflict to one degree or another, and as a result, you have to make design compromises. Or you may find that in order to get the end product you want, you have to accept certain undesirable effects either during the production process or in the end product itself. These undesirable effects are not "purposely created" but are tolerated for the sake of the end product, which is considered to be worthwhile despite them.
Note: If evolutionary theory is true, God is not finished with the production phase. This is also true on a Christian theistic point of view. Christian theism affirms that there will be a Day on which all things are set to rights, including what we see now as "harmful mutations" and various forms of what we tend to call natural evils. They are not permanent features of the creation, but only temporarily tolerated.
Theistic evolution is what you're endorsing. Why on Earth would I attempt to suppport it by speculating a reason for harmful mutations? This is your theory, not mine. You tell me.
Christian Theism isn't a theory. It's a worldview into which I fit theories such as evolution. In any case, I don't need to provide a reason for harmful mutations; I only need to show that their presence doesn't indicate that theism is false.
So you would argue that God dicks around with evolution to produce harmful mutations in us? I think that's a fair presumption, that if God was at the helm of evolution, he'd be taking the shortest, most efficient, most beneficial route to the end product of humans.
You call it "dicks around" because you haven't a clue what you're talking about. How exactly does one go about creating a universe with sentient creatures with the moral capacity to responsibly care for creation and freely love each other and God? Give three examples of how it has been done and compare them for us.
If evolution is the way it appears God has done it, it follows that this is the best way to do it (in every sense of the word "best"). If it turns out that this way involves problems and puzzles, so be it. It's presumptuous to say that God could have taken a shorter, more efficient, more beneficial route. It is presumptious, first, to assume that "shorter" and "more efficient" entail "more beneficial." It is also presumtuous to say we know more about making a universe including free moral agents than God does.
Robot = human.
You (the robot engineer) = God.
Computer Code = DNA
You, as God, create a human. You are in control of its DNA (which will determine what it looks like and what it is predisposed to do). You know (since you are omniscient) that if you create this human, he will kill toddlers. Do you - as God - create that human?
And if you do, who is responsible? The robot, though it was only following the DNA YOU dicked around with? Or you, the dicker-around of the DNA?
No dodge involved. You presume that the DNA determines everything the creature does. I don't. Christian theism affirms that God has bestowed his image on humankind. That means, among other things, that we can be responsible moral agents. So we are not determined to do any immoral act by virtue of our DNA. We ought to, and therefore can, love our neighbours rather than murder them, even if we'd rather murder them.
Our brain chemistry - and by extension, our emotions - are governed by our genetics. My genetics may predispose me to act in a certain way. Or respond to different kinds of situations differently. The analogy between DNA and a computer software program isn't perfect, but it's fairly accurate. This is why I built my robot analogy the way I did. With a robot who can think and learn and move on its own.
I have no argument about predispositions. But being an image-bearer means that you are not a slave of your chemistry. Also, we are social animals, and by virtue of that we form communities that are aware of and have responsibility for cultivating virtues. These things, in tandem, enable us to be more than our chemistry. As I said earlier, I think humans are much more dignified than you seem to.
I can't see how....