Looking at it from the agnostic scientific side, ID doesn’t accept the science as factual whereas TE does accept the science as provisionally true. From these different starting points, ID and TE insert their mostly similar beliefs.
Which means ANY attempt to focus one’s remarks on ID or TE is just a foolish waste of time.
Once someone agrees that God Directed Evolution … that’s it. Our job is done. Time to move to the next person who doesn’t think “God Directs” or that there is “Evolution”.
The BioLogos position should not be interpreted as a rigid approach that refuses to accept a Christian’s adoption of Old Earth Evolution UNLESS HE HOLDS TO A VERY SPECIFIC KIND. Ugh.
Christian views on EVERYTHING is incredibly DIVERSE. Let 'em be that way!
We only have 3 things we hold up for approval:
1) GOD - yes, there is one. Sorry about that, Atheists.
2) He DIRECTS - - yes, he is the creator, the planner, the DIRECTOR. And he answers prayers in real time. Sorry about that, Deists.
3) Among the many things he directs is EVOLUTION - - sorry about that Young Earthers.
FROM THESE 3 POINTS WE ARRIVE AT A “HIGH-LEVEL” TRUTH - - and it transcends the pettiness of the ID vs. TE dispute, regardless of Theology or Science. There are plenty of people who live a good Christian life with errors in either or both.
Since BioLogos supporters have very different views … it is not surprising, nor unhealthy, to let people be - - those who DO believe in the three things above. Whether they are more ID than TE, or vice versa… it doesn’t matter…
The job is done. NEXT!
George
1 Like
That has long been my hope, Zachary. I’m glad to meet a fellow traveler!
And, that’s the context in which my frustration with Luskin’s column arises. Differences of opinion, fairly stated and honestly expressed, are the substance of serious conversation–the types of conversation we are trying to foster here at BL. I hope that someone such as yourself, who wants light without heat, will be able to read my columns without being burned, whenever I talk about aspects of ID. My goal is simply to explain things as accurately, and as clearly, as I can, without rancor. IMO, the single most important need in the public conversation about science and religion is for accurate information that can help one form opinions, not for opinions that lead one to spread inaccurate information.
I simply do not understand how Casey can say with a straight face that “theistic evolutionists almost never challenge anything at the core of atheist beliefs.” It’s not as though Polkinghorne, Conway Morris, Gingerich, Francis Collins, Robin Collins, or McGrath never say why they find Christian theism superior to atheism. Granted, that isn’t always the lead story, but all of them have written thoughtfully about this, usually with secular publishers–so, they aren’t just preaching to the choir, they are out there in the public sphere, putting themselves under fire for their faith.
I’ll even put myself into this picture: I’ve spoken at numerous secular universities, promoting accurate history that is (typically) friendly to our faith, b/c it corrects woefully inaccurate stuff that isn’t. I get my share of hostile questions and ad hominems, too. And, twice I’ve debated atheists face to face, at Oregon State. Apparently none of these things counts against Casey’s generalization.
If you have suggestions, Zachary, about how to go about altering the perception that Casey and others are creating about the intellectual cowardice of folks such as those named here, I’m all ears. For my part, I don’t seek to do likewise, but I have no less concern about this type of mythology than I do about the historical myths that I’m constantly trying to debunk in all of my work.
1 Like
Well, George, most people seek a hi8ghert level of truth i8n both theology and science that you seem to have. They do not settle for the lowest common denominator, which does not please any one except maybe you.
Yes, there is a God, but it matters how God works.
Yes, God works in and through nature, but scientific details do matter,
Yes, God directs evolution, but until humans can give a reasonable explanation all the speculation and arguments are for nothing.
The purpose is not to live a good life. The purpose is to understand God’s Creation.
Wow, Roger… and that’s what CHURCHES and PRAYER and the BIBLE are for.
It’s not, in my opinion, what BioLogos is for. BioLogos is best invested in just 3 ideas:
- There is a God.
- He is in charge.
- And he is in charge of Evolution over millions/billions of years.
Once these positions are accepted, then I’ll leave it to fine and knowledgeable Christian souls such as yourself to worry about additional revelations within the individual conscience.
Surely you don’t want BioLogos to take sides on the specifics WITHIN theology, right? To side with this or that specific denomination? If theology was obviously uniform … we would all be in the same denomination.
BioLogos should emphasize correct science… and I believe we do. But when you introduce theology with science… there are an infinite array of grays … where some people are more comfortable with different percentage mixtures of their Lord with their Science.
George
Ted,
How is Christian theism superior to atheism in this world? I mean in this world, not in the next world. I am most interest in the superiority of a person who lives a life of purpose and meaning that oscillates between Christian theism and atheism during the course of that life.
A very good question, Patrick. First, I didn’t mean this as a moral claim, but rather as an intellectual claim: P believes that theism makes more sense of the whole of reality, including nature as we find it and the possibility of having a science of nature, than non-theism. This is what I was saying, and nothing more. P talks about this in various places, including in this series that I believe you have already read: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/belief-in-god-in-an-age-of-science-john-polkinghorne-part-one
Ted,
Yes, I have read your column (and liked it). But getting back to my question. If, as you say above, Christian theism supremacy over atheism isn’t a moral claim but an intellectual claim, how can Christian theism make more sense of the whole of reality given that Christian theism (TE) uses the same science of nature and of reality that atheism uses? Where is the intellectual superiority?
@Patrick ,
I like your article on peaches in China that are 2.5 million years old. I know it has nothing to do with subject; however, it is interesting. I must go now, for I am getting ready for church. Have a nice day.
Yes peaches have nothing to do with church. Have a good time at church. I am instead going to enjoy my Sunday morning. 
I could make many answers, Patrick, but if we stick with the Polkinghorne columns I cited, please note two big questions in http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/searching-for-motivated-belief-understanding-john-polkinghorne-part-1. Questions such as those go “beyond science” into metaphysics/theology. Theism, IMO, offers a more persuasive answer to such questions than non-theism, which can (IMO) take those features of the universe only as brute, but fortunate, facts. In other words, if we look for deeper answers (a practice consistent with science), then God might be part of the answers to some of those deeper questions–to which scientific answers are elusive, perhaps impossible.
The origin of this problem is theological. We cannot not solve it without resolving the theological issues involved. Again people do not solve problems by papering over them.
I can understand why you do not want to talk about theology, but this is the way it is.
Your belief that BioLogos should be the referee for resolving the theological issues BETWEEN denominations is exceptionally optimistic. Our energies are best leveraged by showing to Creationists that it IS theologically feasible.
Trying to insist that one particular pro-Evolutionary Christian group has to agree with a different pro-Evolutionary Christian group is exactly what the Creationists want us to start doing. It is not wise to intentionally accept that dare.
If I can respond to your question. Christians see the universe as a rational reality based on rational laws. Atheists based on what Dawkins and you say do not. That is the difference and that is why Christians believe that ours is the intellectually superior view because it is a rational approach to a rational reality, rather than a rational approach to an arational reality.
Ted,
So you don’t really have an answer why Christian theism is intellectually superior to atheism. It just kinda feels like it is, right? That’s interesting because I think it is truly human to think that our thoughts, our view of things is correct. We all have this high intelligence and reasoning to convince ourselves that “we understand”. I think that is a big part of what makes use human.
Roger,
I think I understand what you are saying. So you believe a universe with rational reality based on rational laws is an intellectually superior view than a rational approach to an arational (irrational?) reality. Ok but is there any way to know which is true?
Conway Morris book; “Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe” opened up a new paradigm of understanding the evolutionary process when I first encountered it. It made me aware that the Universe has active intelligence imbedded within it not only from the biological level but also it appears from the molecular and atomic level. Intelligence in the sense that we are the products of its potential.
However I tend to see Gould’s point as coexisting with Morris’s observation. I don’t think we can expect to rerun the evolutionary process and come out with similar results every time because there are billions and billions of left and right turns throughout the process. The earth’s history is a unique tape that required constantly changing dynamics to bring us to fruition; after all it took a billion years from inception to get to us. There is the possibility that without certain left and right turns catastrophically from mother earth we could have gone another billion years of biological experimentation without our coming to fruition. We needed that meteor 65 million years ago to clean house for a new rise of potential and without it who knows. Perhaps Morris’s idea would be that we might have evolved anyway from another lineage and killed off all the large dinosaur fauna instead of the large mammalian ones. 
Therefore I consider our existence as providential enabling from the potential that is embedded within the fabric of the Universe. That providential enabling I see as the Hand of God, because even with Intelligence embedded in the core attributes we still needed a break or two here and there to be capable of writing these thoughts out. 
1 Like
Thank you for the response.
I think that the word arational or without reason is better than irrational or another non-standard rationality. People who are amoral have no moral standard, which those who are immoral have a non-standard moral code.
As I understand Monod, Dawkins, and yourself, their is no rational order in the universe, except for individual human beings. If that is true, then you are correct these is no way of knowing id there is rational order in the universe, because there is no basis for knowledge.
Knowledge or science is giving rational order to information about the universe. If the universe has no rational order, as the New Atheism like most other religion, there is no knowledge or science.
On the other hand if the universe does have rational order, knowledge, even partial, and science are possible. Thus the evidence for the rationality of the universe is based on validity of the power of science.
One caveat. Knowledge is not knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt. Nothing is certain in this world. Thus science requires faith, just as religion does. Thus if you believe that the order of the world is a mirage as the Hindus do, you are entitled to that faith. Christians choose to believe that the order of the universe is not a mirage, but evidence of the rational nature of God the Creator.
Now it is true that we are finding that the Einsteinian order of science is different from the kind of Newtonian order of science posited before. It is not easy to make the transition from one scientific model to another, particularly when philosophy and theology have not kept pace.
However contrary to expectations on both sides I find the Einsteinian model of Reality to be Relational and thus more compatible with Christianity than with Materialism.
1 Like
Not at all, Patrick. What seems to be happening here is that you don’t regard my answer as any kind of answer. I say this, however: theism provides a more persuasive account of the nature of nature (as a contingently existing thing with contingent properties), and also of why a science of nature is possible at all. Those aren’t scientific questions: science doesn’t have answers, except to say that’s just the way it is, which isn’t a very deep answer at all (IMO). Whereas theism accounts nicely for this state of affairs–as Polkingorne argues in Belief In God in an Age of Science (the book from which I serialized the title chapter) and other places.
I think you are requiring me to give a scientific answer, when I’m not offering one. I’m not appealing to “gaps” of some sort within standard scientific explanations. That would be a typical creationist or ID approach. Rather, I’m building on the inability of science to answer some of the larger questions that science raises–metaphysical questions that are meaningful, and that scientists themselves very often ask.
This isn’t simply “it just kinda feels like it is.” It’s actually an effort to answer questions that lie outside the scope of science. I think you’re looking for slam dunk answers to jump shot questions, whereas I think jump shots are the only ones available to us on such matters.
1 Like
Ted,
I see what you are saying. I was mostly quibbling with the word “superior”. If you said “alternative” or even “better alternative” I would be okay with that. To me the 100% atheist position is completely not provable, so I maintain either a “6.99 agnostic on the Dawkins scale” or an atheist position to a literal read of the bible. I don’t consider the above to be “superior” to any belief system but equally possible intellectually. So I think we are good. Merry Christmas to you and your family.