Thanks for the reference - there is some fascinating work undertaken on areas of biology. I had spend a few years on modelling biologically interesting iron based centres (many years ago) and things have come a long way since then. I think we need to understand that the area deals with the type of models people employ in endeavouring to understand important processes such as photosynthesis, and as the author states, QM would be useful for any chemical process. This is a far cry from providing some type of directionless-random principle in biology, let alone offer a plank to neo-Darwinian theory. Genetic mutation is perhaps even more difficult to model with any precision, and it is inappropriate to invoke QM in this area.
Yes, @Eddie, it was a slip. Thanks for the Christmas gift of kindness in not ridiculing my amateur mistake. Yes, I am an amateur at biology.
With regard to freedom and quantum indeterminancy, I think you may be conflating natureās freedom with freedom of will. Or perhaps you think that I conflate the two. So to clarify, I regard quantum indeterminancy as vesting every operation that occurs in the universe at quantum scales with freedom from a deterministic outcome, whether that determinism be thought of mathematically or theologically. And a lot of biology happens at quantum scales. Thatās my opinion as of today, anyway.
Finally, Iām still rather enamored of the referee analogy. The referee is not merely accepting a random outcome; the referee is using the random outcome to enforce fairness in an interaction between teams (or individuals) that accept the refereeās authority. In a very important way, itās not the referee, but the players who must accept the outcomeāalong with the refereeās authority.
Hi @Eddie, a Merry Christ-mas to you too.
Evolution needs more than inheritance with a bit of random mutation; natural selection is also involved. This means God may intervene whenever and pretty much however He wants in order to guide the end result.
Perhaps I need a better analogy than the referee flipping a coin, since it seems to indicate that the outcome is entirely guidedāi.e., it has no counterpart to natural selection. Suggestions for a better analogy, anyone?
Or it could mean that God doesnāt intervene at all.
Sure, thatās a possibility. I wasnāt trying to prove the correctness of my theology; I was just trying to demonstrate the compatibility of evolution with divine providence.
1 Like
You are exactly right. This is what @Eddie and everyone else has some how overlooked. Natural Selection gives God clear power over evolution. Now the thing that obscured this while in plain sight is the tag ānatural.ā People assume that if you call something natural, then it is not divine, but names do not indicate nature, activities indicate nature.
Furthermore no one can really say how natural selection works. How do they know that it is really natural if they do not know how it works? Selection indicates making a choice or decision. Nature cannot think, so Nature cannot select, so natural selection is an oxymoron.
You are also right. Refereeing a game is not a good description of the process, Evolution is not a game. There are no winning or losing teams. Everyone is or should be working to improve the whole situation for everyone.
Evolution is trial and error. In that sense it is random. Again the question is how does God guide the system. First of all God created the System and the systems within the System. The overall System is the Ecology or Environment, but the Ecology is not static. It is constantly changing. These changes produced different ecological niches, which in turn created different species, and eventually created human beings.
To say God intervenes in evolution, esp. in the way Eddie would have God intervene, is a little much, but when you see what God is doing and how God is doing it, you see Godās fingerprints all over it.
Keep up the good work.
Pardon me for engaging in your discussion. But some of this must be corrected.
A) Agreed! It doesnāt matter whether God intervenes in the ārandom mutationā or the ānatural selectionā. But ārandom mutationā is by far the EASIEST and LEAST complicated.
B) How can this be so, my dear Eddie?! If they leaders of BioLogosā¦ how can they INTENTIONALLY seek to show that the Christian view of God is compatible with Evolutionary science ā¦ and yet think Godās involvement is distasteful? I will agree with you that SOME of our leaders DO treat this concept warily - - if only not to upset their Atheist friends and colleagues.
C) How can this final point be so? You and I were compelled to agree that Collins literally DESCRIBES the front-loading scenario ??? He may not use the term āfront-loaded/front-loadingā ā¦ but he describes the reality to perfection.
George
Weāve been through this beforeā¦ there is no other way to accomplish Collinās description than by God FRONT LOADING the universeā¦ If you are the Philosopher you claim to be, the conclusion is obvious and unavoidable.
Certainly you are not this rude to the Hosts of parties you attend?
George
P.S. @Eddie , I ask you this specific question about whether you are rude at parties ā¦ not because you disagree with me, but because even AFTER it has been explicitly pointed out how to interpret Collinsā writing, you continue to IMPUGN the founder (and Host) of this organization!
Letās look at your WHOLE PARAGRAPH once more:
āCollins neither describes, nor accepts, front-loaded evolution. He says that God foreknows outcomes but he has never said that God determines the outcomes ā even though that would be the easiest thing in the world for him to say, if he believed it. It follows that he does not believe it. In fact, every word he has written on the subject indicates that he thinks God left specific evolutionary outcomes to Darwinian rolls of the dice. How he squares that with a God who is in control of evolution, only God and Collins know.ā
Letās ignore the overall tone - - which is certainly NOT graciousā¦ but the philosophical and theological path for interpreting Collinsā views was explicitly spelled out to you. There is NO OTHER way to interpret Collins and his views on God as CREATOR (not just as KNOWER) ā¦ and that Front-Loading is the only way to merge God (as Creator) with evolution unwinding as a NATURAL process.
@Eddie Please desist from:
1) Questioning the Christian sincerity of Collins ("it follows that he does not believe it [it = God determines evolutionary outcomes]) ; is this really your job, to suggest that Collins doesnāt really believe the very point upon which BioLogos was created?
2) Mis-stating what Collins describes. While Collins has yet to use the phrase āfront-loadedā, Collins most certainly DESCRIBES a scenario that can only be interpreted as āfront-loadingā. In all your prior posts, you have failed to show that a God who is both KNOWER and CREATOR somehow has some other way to accomplish his ends other than DIRECTING/GUIDING.
3) Implying that Collins is so guilty of false beliefs, he requires some kind of atonement with God (āHow he squares that with a God who is in control of evolution, only God and Collins know.ā )
Your basis for this charge can be seen in this sentence:
āIn fact, every word he has written on the subject indicates that he thinks God left specific evolutionary outcomes to Darwinian rolls of the dice.ā
This is only true if we were somehow in doubt as to what Collins sees as Godās role in evolution. MOST anyone would be satisfied that Collins has demonstrated his position - - BY THE VERY CREATION BIOLOGOS.
But even after creating this organization, you somehow conclude that if Collins doesnāt use the same words that you use, he could not sincerely believe the actual principle upon which BioLogos finds its existence!
Letās do this a LITTLE BIT at a time.
Hereās a tiny quote of what you said:
"Collins neither describes, nor accepts, front-loaded evolution. He says that God foreknows outcomes but he has never said that God determines the outcomes "
So letās revisit this text:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
By Francis Collins
Page 205
"But how could God take such changes? If evolution is random, how could He really be in charge, and how could He be certain of an outcome that included intelligent beings at all?
āThe solution is actually readily at hand, once one ceases to apply human limitations to God. If God is outside of nature, then He is outside of space and time. In that context, God could in the moment of creation of the universe also know every detail of the future. That could include the formation of the stars, planets, and galaxies, all of the chemistry, physics, geology, and biology that led to the formation of life on earth, and the evolution of humans, right to the moment of your reading this book - - and beyond.ā
āIn that context, evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from Godās perspective the outcome would be entirely specified Thus God could be completely and intimately involved in the creation of all species, while from our perspective, limited as it is by the tyranny of linear time, this would appear a random and undirected process.ā
Soooooā¦
Eddie, try to pretend you are not you. Try to pretend that you have been vaguely looking for the words to express a long-standing view that one can be a Christian and STILL believe God used Evolution, over millions of years, to create Humanity.
In other words, Eddie, try not to look for the LOOPHOLES in what he is saying. Look at the words as a NORMAL READING of what he intends to express:
- Collins is clearly saying God is DIRECTING as well as MAKING ā¦ God is CREATOR as well as KNOWER.
- The only way God can do this is to, as you would say, āFront-Loadā his Creation. There just isnāt any other to come to the conclusion.
- What Collins is DESCRIBING is the configuration of factors necessary for God to KNOW, CREATE and still accomplish the DIRECTING.
If, still, you just donāt agree with this interpretation ā¦ if you STILL think Collins writings are inadequate for the purpose, I would suggest that you are not suited to discuss the issues being analyzed here at BioLogos.
Essentially, and I mean this with the utmost respect possible under the circumstances, a person who thinks as described above, just doesnāt appear qualified to comprehend the work of BioLogos.
George
Letās! But you have to have liberal use of emoticons so people know you are just being lighthearted. Barber pole 
, blowfish 
, saxophone 
ā¦I propose that any emoticon will do to signal that wit and levity are being put forth.
4 Likes
You write and write and write ā¦ and you never get anywhere.
Collins writes this:
āThe solution is actually readily at hand, once one ceases to apply human limitations to God. If God is outside of nature, then He is outside of space and time. In that context, God could in the moment of creation of the universe also know every detail of the future.ā
Extract:
1) The Solution is at hand;
2) Assume God is outside of space and time;
3) God IN THE MOMENT OF CREATION;
4) Knows every detail [he needs to know] to create [a front-loaded] Universe.
Eddie, perhaps this year will be the year that BioLogos leaders will write some remedial essays for people with your category of reticent interpretation.
George
1 Like
I have no interest in this exchange, but it needs to be said that the context (quote given above) in which Collins says āGod couldā¦ā is correct in that no-one can say what God has actually done. We may quote scripture, as āthus says Godā¦ā in which case we would believe the prophet is inspired, and thus reveal to us Godās instructions. We cannot state what God has done without Biblical authority - thus if I, or Collins, or George, or Eddie, say, āGod is doing this or thatā, the best we can say is we express our faith in this way, and we believe the comment can be directly related to specific scripture - otherwise, we should say, I believe God can do anything, or perhaps we may say, I think it is reasonable to affirm that God has done this, or He may have, or could have.
Although I am critical of the way BioLogos speaks of evolution and Godās āinvolvementā, on this prolonged exchange regarding Collins, I think the criticisms of his statement(s) are ill founded. I will add 
to indicate something humorous (although I cannot think of anything more witty for now).
1 Like
Collins writes: āThe solution is actually readily at hand ā¦ā
And yet you still adamantly insist Collins is
a. in error;
b. vague; and/or
c. didnāt actually offer a solution.
Eddie, I canāt be any briefer in exposing your thinking as overly rigid and lacking in insight.
Maybe the next 30 days of January will be better for you . . . 
P.S. Eddieā¦ I see you response below ā¦ it is not correct, and you are unconvincing.