Is anything really supernatural? Assuming miracles do happen, they would be just as natural as the sky being blue, or the earth’s orbit.
2 Likes
Wasn’t sure where this came from. Looking back in the thread I only found the response to Ecerotops and he was the one to use the term not me. So his usage was with in reference to the apprehension of truth by means of revelation as opposed to scientific inquiry. If you are claiming there is no difference between these things then I could not disagree more!
I certainly don’t see where the discussion of miracles came into this. I have made my position on that topic clear numerous times, that if miracles are defined as a violation of the laws of nature then I do not believe in them. Instead I define miracles as unexpected events which God has hand in bringing them about.
I wasn’t a fan of the word “supernatural” either for pretty much the same reason - preferring the distinction between physical and spiritual. The problem I encountered was that the word “physical” has more than one definition, sometimes meaning bodily and other times meaning natural. Thus we have a word in 1 Cor 15 is translated as both “physical” and “natural” to say that we are sown a physical/natural body and raised a spiritual body. This is what suggests the uses of the word “supernatural” to aid in this contrast. The point is that physical things are part of a particular mathematical space-time structure of natural law deriving their existence and nature from components governed by these mathematical laws, and spiritual things are not a part of that structure and have their existence from an innate nature pretty much as a law unto themselves. There is no implication of what is natural or un-natural in this for all do indeed have the same origin in God and is according to His design, but there is a difference between physical (natural) and non-physical (or spiritual).
I can understand wondering about what only SEEMS to be a miracle and what is one.
But the average Biblicist is not going to seriously wonder if there are “SUPER-natural” events in addition to just “Natural” events. Biblicists know there are such events!
The Christian alchemists of old would invoke the angels in order to get “inside information” on the natural world.
But if an Angel were to tell one of those alchemists that no human could do something, I don’t think there would be skepticism. The idea that God could help Moses divide the Red Sea, or “stop the sun” during a battle, was not based on some belief that nature was infinitely flexible. It was based more on the idea that divinities had powers over and above nature.
In polytheistic systems, gods tended to have special powers… but not UNLIMITED powers. Each deity had its realm.
When discussions turned towards one, all powerful God … conversations would start to include “all the realms of divine power” also being combined.
Mithraism was an interesting transitional example. It appears that Mithraism was a new religion (using an old god’s name, Mithra) designed to explain something NEW in the Cosmos!: the precession of the Zodiac.
The God Saturn was in charge of moving Saturn, and Jupiter was in charge of moving Jupiter. But then a Greek discovered that there was now something even bigger that moved too!: The Zodiac itself!
“The great demarcation point in the history of the astrological ages is around 127 BC when the Greek astronomer-astrologer Hipparchus from observation discovered that the great immovable sphere of fixed stars was not fixed but slowly moving eastwards due to what is now known as precession of the equinoxes. It is possible that some other astronomers before Hipparchus had also noticed the phenomenon, but it is Hipparchus who is credited with this discovery.”
“This discovery by Hipparchus is not entirely unexpected as Hipparchus is considered to have been the greatest observational astronomer in his time and up until Tycho Brahe in the 16th century AD. What is highly contentious in modern times is the claim by many that observation of the effects of precession of the equinoxes was known well before the time of Hipparchus and his contemporaries in Greece or even Mesopotamia. The academic answer is no – precession of the equinoxes was unknown in earlier times.”
And so … in Anatolia, a priesthood was established, along the lines of a Greek mystery school, in recognition and worship of the God (which must exist!) that was so powerful and so transcendent that He could move the Entire Zodiac!
In my experience American Protestants seem to have a higher degree of biblical fundamentalism and rejection of things like evolution than churches in the UK. Also Catholic Papal and Vatican statments and writers appear to be more open to evolution than in some previous generations. There is still a tendancy among the conservative parts of the churches to see any adaption to science as being a betrayal of biblical revelation and “truth”. Maybe I am more suprised that the numbers accepting evolution have gone up.
2 Likes
Oh, I understand the risks… but I think it’s worth taking the risk. It forces us to use more clarity:
- Behe has a video interview (only a few years old) where he proposes his hypothetical “Billiard Ball Shot” by God… where he essentially says there is nothing to see in God’s design that makes it obvious that God has designed all living creatures.
But please don’t ask me to reconcile his comments there with his current book. I don’t get what he’s doing. And I suppose I am not alone.
-
I and others like me reject any thought that Science can distinguish between “designed” and “not designed”. We only point out that by definition, if God makes something by special creation, he absolutely MUST define all the genes…or the creature isn’t going to draw more than a few breaths before collapsing in a fallen heap.
-
Evolution, requiring millions of human years, is certainly giving God even MORE time to precisely define each creature’s genetic load.
I agree with you completely that "… it is a fools’ errand to go scientifically searching for demarcation separating God’s involvement from his alleged “non-involvement”.
There is no demarcation. He’s involved 100%, all the time.
1 Like
Sorry it took me so long to get back to your posting here… I had lost track of it… but I was determined to find it and confer!
As we can see, the LIVE quote and your “exposed” quote are the same. I’m not sure why
taking the skin off the quote made things any easier for me, but I won’t quibble over that.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
But I think I will quibble over your use of the term megalomania as applied to me, or my new haunts.
There are precious few people that I know who have been willing to say “God was guiding it every step along the way.”, especially with Eddie roaming the halls.
@Mervin_Bitikofer says he is a 100%. And back in 2017, you wrote this partial phrase. I hope you don’t actually think I was supposed to notice a phrase, buried in a sentence, buried in a paragraph, buried in a posting, to which I was not given any special notice or alert.
I am cheered by your position; I don’t believe I had any reason to think you held it. But now that we all know that you do…
Maybe you can explain why you, or why you AND @Mervin_Bitikofer, rarely speak up when Atheist Evolutionists are debating Creationists, to point out the obvious:
Why are you trying to defend Evolution as though there is no God involved, when you are a 100%er who believes God is not only involved, but one hundred percent involved?
It would delight me to understand your hesitance to make that call!
Well, Jay will speak for himself, I’m sure. As for me, it’s true I’m not often out in the “internet wilds” these days searching out militant atheists (or creationists) to pick fights with. And most of the atheists around here are not busy trying to pit science against faith; they are usually very civil and knowledgeable contributors. So what is there (on the science side) to debate about? I would explain evolution about the same way I explain gravity or meteorology - without feeling like I need to add in any “God-talk” to help it make mechanical sense. My religious convictions are to provide a context for it all, to help it make theological sense - not to aid in scientific explanation.
5 Likes
I said that a couple of weeks ago.
I refer you back to your previous statement. If you don’t follow everything I say, unless I happen to give you special notice, then how do you know how often I speak up?
I don’t have the time or the inclination to involve myself in every discussion. Your complaint basically comes down to the fact that I don’t beat the drum the way you want me to beat it. Sorry. We’re just different in that regard.
3 Likes
Yep… I see that now. The thread was started in 2017… and your posting was quite recent.
So… that would certainly explain my surprise in seeing it.
So… now we are going to quibble about how well I follow you… it’s not really the point.
My experience at BioLogos is that I was mostly poked fun for thinking God would fire cosmic rays into human gonads.
And it was almost JUST ME when I would ask a pro-Evolutionist to stop arguing like God doesn’t get involved. I was pretty much the only one I noticed ever making such a point.
And so … it felt pretty lonely out here on the BioLogos boards … trying to remind the pro-Evolutionists that they really aren’t doing anyone any favors trying to convince a Creationist that Evolution can work without God.
My complaint was that as far as I could tell… NOBODY does.
Then you said I was a meglomaniac … because you were a One Hundred Percenter TOO!
Okay… by Gosh… that is GREAT news. And it is great news that @Mervin_Bitikofer is to.
This is GOOD NEWS to hear. Because I really didn’t think there was anyone else in on the party.
Let’s not forget @Christy, who says she is too.
So does that mean my Cosmic Ray comments are in good standing? They really weren’t about ONLY COSMIC RAYS … there’s LOTS of ways for God to engage evolution and make the next mutation - - one way or another.
So, it sounds like I don’t have to make a list of all the causes…
And you somehow equated this speculation with the basic affirmation “God guides evolution”?!?
3 Likes
Well, now you have me wondering what your question really means?
When I first established my position that God guides Evolutioni … I was challenged by a poster or two … wondering just how that would work.
My basic premises were, at the time, and still to this day:
- All mutations are selected and executed by God.
- All changes in ecosystem which ultimately effect natural selection are guided by God.
For me, the text book example is the dino-killing asteroid!
It is easy to see God “firing an asteroid” to collide with Earth. As long as large and small carnivorous dinosaurs were around, mammals would always be small enough to avoid consumption.
And so it was also easy to imagine God using other “long range” energies to “effect a mutation” - - cosmic rays filled the bill!
But as I’ve said, eventually, and more recently, there is a whole list of other energies and factors that trigger mutations (flawed replications of genetic material). But at the time, I thought it would be most difficult to challenge the long range efficaciousness of cosmic rays.
So, @Christy, now that I’ve explained myself … where is your line of inquiry taking you?
But these premises are overkill and do not agree with the evidence which makes it clear that evolution is not under God’s absolute control – for that would mean that God is an inept bungler. Instead, I suggest you take a considerably large step back and simply say that God is responsible for SOME of the changes in the environment which affect both natural selection and some mutations in the early stages of evolution. In the later stages of evolution organism have developed mechanisms for intentionally introducing variation into the genome themselves in a much more controlled and limited manner (like sexual reproduction, for example). In this way, evolution is a learning process by which species figure things out for themselves rather than a design process by a deity who keep making mistakes for some peculiar reason.
4 Likes
George, I like some of what you say, but cannot help but agree its @mitchellmckain that it is a bit of overkill. To sustain creation and to guide creation is little different concept, and to put each atom in a specific place still another. I to am content with the mystery, but think it is illustrated in Genesis when God planted a garden. When you plant a garden, you place seeds or transplant plants, provide nutrients, water, prune and give space and light, but allow the innate potential of each plant and seed to express itself, wherein lies the joy of watching it grow. As I believe we have a measure of freedom of will and expression, so do I believe God allows such in creation, and perhaps takes joy in seeing it grow to goodness. Of course, he engages us in to process.
Jesus said, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.” Perhaps that applies in more ways than one.
2 Likes
It’s not a line of inquiry. Maybe I still have a junior high mentality, but I can completely sympathize with the fact that any sentence that juxtaposes God and gonads elicits some ribbing. So when you say you concluded that no one here at BioLogos can countenance the idea of God guiding evolution and the evidence is that people laughed at your idea of God aiming cosmic rays at creatures’ gonads, I just find that a little funny.
4 Likes
You made it the point. Actually, you made it about yourself, and how you singlehandedly carried the banner of God-guided evolution here at BioLogos for oh, so many years. Me, myself, and I … JUST ME …
See above. I didn’t say you were one. I said the megalomania of your new environs was rubbing off on you. If you don’t know what I mean, then you don’t know whose banner it is that you’re carrying.
No. Still a silly idea. But that’s just me …
1 Like
And we guys when thinking about bombarding cosmic rays tend to gird our loins defensively.
3 Likes
Any leads on where I can order some 6-inch thick lead underwear? …guess I better look at some sturdy suspenders to go with that.
3 Likes
Any NOVICE Biblicist understands that there is sufficient diversity of texts within the Bible that you can have, simultaneously, Calvinists and Free Will Christians in the same room at the same time, and both groups are absolutely convinced of the veracity of their position.
WOW… what a shock.
You think you have a reason to have God ignore evolution. I do not. Another big shock.
I hope you don’t think you are going to convince me otherwise. I certainly have no expectation of convincing YOU otherwise.
I know, I know… yet ANOTHER big shock!
I guess we must find each other to be quite odd.
You say you are a 100%er … and yet you are pronouncing limitations on how God effects his mutations. How exactly does your 100 percent work … if you think there are methods of mutation off limits to God?
It’s deliciously funny.
But when the ribbing turns into statements of complete dismissal… then it becomes a bias that is pretty hard to defend… and I mean the bias of many here at BioLogos.
P.S. For example, @Jay313 makes a big flourishing gesture about stating that God is 100% engaged in evolution which, presumably, means that all mutations are designed and effected by God.
Perhaps he meant it in some other way.
I’m inclined to suspect this, since he then states in yet another posting, adamantly, that God would never effect a mutation by means of Cosmic rays in ovary or sperm related tissue.
Since there is every reason to think that Cosmic rays are quite capable of effecting a mutation … what are we to conclude about Jay’s 100% position on God being fully engaged in Evolutionary processes?