I totally agree with that statement. There is nothing theologically or scientifically to disagree with it.
Now, to anticipate your confusion, I totally disagree with the assertion that science’s understanding of our origins is the complete story. Even though science does not detect God’s action or purpose, does not mean it does not exist. I dispute “scientism” (the notion that science is total view of the world) entirely while finding my peace with science, which has proven to find helpful (but partial) understandings of our world
Let us start with Ann. Nearly all her critique is addressed already here: Cancer and Evolutionary Theory - #19 by Swamidass. Until that “response” is answered, it really makes no sense to engage again. If that is what she wants, she can either respond directly to all those points, or retracts the clear errors she has made. I would honestly welcome and respect a retraction. To that I would add @benkirk’s post,
Of course, she is not obligated to respond, and I do not expect continued engagement right now. But until there is a semblance of actually engaging the scientific details, it is hard to take her articles as a legitimate scientific critique. Of course, the comic book critique of cancer biology is pretty funny, but also embarrassing for DI (and anyone else who might make it). I am not taking that is a legitimate scientific point.
==============
About Wells, I quoted him accurately with a link:
TOPS then explicitly rejects several implications of Darwinian evolution.
These include: (1a) The implication that living things are best understood from
the bottom up, in terms of their molecular constituents. (1b) The implications
that DNA mutations are the raw materials of macroevolution, that embryo
development is controlled by a genetic program, that cancer is a genetic disease,
etc. (1c) The implication that many features of living things are useless vestiges
of random processes, so it is a waste of time to inquire into their functions.
Finally, TOPS assumes as a working hypothesis that various implications
of ID are true. These include: (2a) The implication that living things are best
understood from the top down, as irreducibly complex organic wholes. (2b) The
implications that DNA mutations do not lead to macroevolution, that the
developmental program of an embryo is not reducible to its DNA, that cancer
originates in higher structural features of the cell rather than in its DNA, etc. (2c)
The implication that all features of living things should be presumed to have a
function until proven otherwise, and that reverse engineering is the best way to
understand them.
Then added this addendum…
[Note: apparently,Wells complains that this quote is taken out of context. Rather than getting into a protracted debate about what he has and has not said about this (see for example http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/thats_another_f.html) I’ll take him at his word that some how what he wrote here is not what he meant. I thought I was representing him accurately, but apparently I was not. Sorry.]
My view (then as now) is that cancer cells contain hundreds or thousands of genetic mutations, which contribute substantially to the progression of the disease, but that cancer does not begin (as DNA reductionists claim) with an accumulation of single mutations
I would point out that this is not what the vast majority of the field believes. If that is his position fine. But that also flies in the face of what we know of cancer biology.
My best guess as to what is going on here is that we think that cancer develops like: mutational cause → mutations → cancer. I think Wells is saying that “centrosome turbine malfunction → chromosomal instability (a mutational cause) → mutations → cancer.” Now, it is possible that in some cancers “chromosomal instability (a mutational cause) → mutations → cancer.” Though I know of no case where centrosome turbine malfunction (Wells’s pet ID theory) is remotely taken seriously. Please show me links to people that agree. Moreover, it is very clear that many cancers do not have chromosomal instability (so that is not a universal mechanism).
So while I am happy to take Wells’s at his word that he thinks mutations are important in cancer, the fact remains:
His written work (including the most recent article) seems to argue that ID requires a totally different understanding of cancer than we currently have in biology. Moreover, I am not the first to notice this; Well’s understanding of ID and cancer is well known: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/thats_another_f.html. If he does not think this is a correct representation of his work, I would love to hear either (1) which parts of his published work he will retract, or (2) how exactly his understanding of cancer is just a non-consequential restatement of the dominant paradigm: that cancer is driven by mutational changes (that can be caused by a whole host of different mutational forces). If he cannot do this, I’m not sure at all what is objection is to me stating that he argues: “ID requires a totally different understanding of cancer than we currently have in biology.”
Now, if Dr. Wells does read this, I hope he is not offended. This is my best attempt to explain his position. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am, I am not the only one confused by his position. I would love for him to explain himself.
In this particular exchange, I do not think ENV’s goal was careful dialogue about science. So it is not surprising if he does not engage. No hard feelings, and I wish him the best.
This is not the lengthiest post I have made on this topic. All of this has been expressed several times and several ways here at BioLogos. I’ve said that (1) I believe that God can act by first cause directly in evolution, (2) that science cannot see this action, (3) and I see several ways He could have directed evolution, but (2) I am agnostic about exactly how He exerts his action.
So, nothing new in this post. I just thought you would appreciate it though =). Sometimes it seems like I answer your questions about divine action, and then you forget my answers just to ask me again another day.
I also do take some offense to the suggestion that I lightly and ignorantly take this position. I’ve known and studied about Molinism and these issues since at least college. Maybe I am not as ignorant as you fear.
I’m pretty sure William Lane Craig is the one who has popularized this position recently.
[quote=“Eddie, post:192, topic:5673”]
Very clever, to be sure, but it’s hardly in tune with the plain sense of the Biblical texts on creation, and it’s clearly motivated by the desire to keep design completely out of scientific discussion and allow it only at the level of theological discussion… if a medieval thinker offers a possibility of harmonizing Darwinism with Christianity, that thinker is all the rage. [/quote]
Eh. Not so much. The scientists didn’t dredge up Molinism. W.L. Craig is the recent source, and if scientists are attracted to his philosophical musings, it is understandable. Stay away from conspiracy theories!
Does it really matter? I’m still surprised when anyone treats threads like these as if they are more than conversations. Mostly, it’s people just thinking out loud and responding to whatever direction the discussion headed. These are not published essays or books or even blogs, which at least receive some thought and editing before appearing. Trying to treat these little musings as position papers is giving them far too much importance, in my mind.
My main objectin to mainstream science’s presentation of evolution is that it directly contradicts Christian theology where it is not just a matter of ‘chance’ via a blind, goaless, mindless natural process that the human species is on this planet. Rather, that human species is the crowning creation of God that could not in anyway fail to appear on this planet. I understand why science puts that forward (methodological naturalsm) but that is an assumption as a way of working not something producable by a scientific experiment or testing or observation.
Well evolution isn’t simply a matter of chance, any scientist worth speaking on the subject will tell you that. But evolution aside, how do you feel about rain?
You did note the word chance was in air quotes right? One could remove all mention to chance and my point would remain untouched:
My main objectin to mainstream science’s presentation of evolution is that it directly contradicts Christian theology where it is not just a matter of a blind, goaless, mindless natural process that the human species is on this planet.
I like the rain but am unaware where theology speaks of it… could you point me to that?
Hence my question about rain. It’s a blind, goalless, mindless, natural process. But the Bible says explicitly that rain happens as a direct result of God’s specific choices and actions; it rains when He makes it rain, and it stops raining when He makes it stop raining. How do you reconcile that?
I’m unaware of where theology speaks of evolution. Anyway, back to the question, how do you feel about rain? Where does it come from?
I can but suggest you read more theology where you will read many many tomes about God bringing about the human species as the crowning act of creation and indeed the object of that creation for salvation. You don’t even need to go to theology for that of course as its right there in the Bible. As evolution is presented in mainstream science and due to methodological naturalism, if you rewind back to the first organisms appearing, if there was something different in the ‘chaotic’ environment or something different was selected for, or a different mutation happened or genetic drift variance then the human species might well not have appeared. After all on that same science we are just another species, nothing special at all, lumps of matter in a universe that is just as natural in its origins as that human species. Now science may well be right on all that but that’s not the point which is that it is in no way compatible with Christian theology.
As for rain, it is part of the creation of God, hence occurs but as I’ve already said, not something that pertains to any Christian theological position that I know of.
Yeah I know all those passages. But remember what I said; I am unaware of where theology speaks of evolution. Those passages you mention aren’t saying anything about evolution. So where are all the Bible verses talking about evolution?
Here’s the issue again. Rain is a blind, goalless, mindless, natural process. But the Bible says explicitly that rain happens as a direct result of God’s specific choices and actions; it rains when He makes it rain, and it stops raining when He makes it stop raining. Let’s look at this.
Science says rain is a blind, goalless, mindless, natural process.
The Bible says rain is the direct result of God’s specific choices and acts; it rains when He makes it rain, and it stops raining when He makes it stop raining.
How do you reconcile that? Do you believe in Theistic Precipitation? By the way, if you’re unaware of the centuries of theological wrestling with the concept of natural processes and laws, I can direct you to some reading material. This is not a light matter, it was once as big a deal as evolution is now.
The Bible and Christian theology speak clearly to the matter of the human species being the crowning creative act by God on the planet earth and the object of his attention, focus and actions, specifically in salvation.
Given #1 the human species is a necessary result in God’s creation, it could not fail to appear.
On biological evolution, the human species is not the crowning creative act, nor object and focus of anyone or anythings actions and definitely not in respect to salvation but rather an optional species that has appeared on the planet earth but did not need do so.
On 1-3 there is a direct conflict between the Bible and Christian theology and biological evolution with respect to the human species where the former has that species as a necessary result of creation and the latter does not.
There are mutually exclusive to each other.
I don’t know what you can’t see about this obvious conflict nor why your persist with the disanalogy of rain where neither the Bible nor Christian theology has it as a direct action of God nor of his choices, or a necessary result of God’s creation.
However, does evolution really teach this? As I understand it (and I am a scientist), science does not teach that evolution is purposeless. Rather, it teaches that science has not found by scientific means its purpose. This is not to deny purpose, but to declare that science has not found it.
I’m fine with that. Independent of God’s self-revelation in Scripture, how could we expect to determine God’s purposes by scientific means any ways?
So is your objection that science does not find evidence of what we know to be true from Scripture?
In all fairness, the Bible also says that rain is a mindless natural process in a sense in Matthew 5:45 He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
That doesn’t mean he is not there in the sun and rain, just as he sustains all creation.
Science teaches natural selection and that is not a process that has intelligence, mindfulness or any goal to produce a specific species. I don’t object to science doing that because it is a byproduct of their methodology (methodological naturalsm). I am but saying that MN is not somethng evidenced, or the result of experimentation, or observation, but is an assumption made as a way of working and non-one is obligated to accept that assumption outside of the scientific enterprise. That is, that I can accept the fact and theory of evolution in so far as it is based on evidence but reject any assertiom made by science that is predicated only on that assumption.
