Cancer and Evolutionary Theory

Faith & Science Conversation
273

Hi Matt,

I hope you will indulge me as I engage in a bit of whimsy. Hopefully you can laugh along…

Okay,then, let’s apply the RTM rules of linguistics to Bible translation. I’ll restrict my analysis to the ESV, which has a good reputation among conservative evangelicals.

Romans 1:26 - For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;

The translation committee made a serious error here. For a theologically correct translation that orthodox Christians could use with confidence, they should have rendered it as follows:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged artificial relations for those that are contrary to artifice;

Yes, the theologically correct translation is so much clearer!

Now let’s take a look at the committee’s translation of Romans 6:19

I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations.

An egregious theological error! How can they call themselves Biblical scholars? And very muddled to boot. Let’s clear it up:

I am speaking in human terms, because of your artificial limitations.

Much better! Both clear and theologically correct.

Now let’s examine I Corinthians 15:44

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

So discordant with orthodoxy. Sad! Orthodox Christians know that it should be translated thus:

It is sown an artificial body; it is raised a spiritual body.

Clear as the noon-day sun. And–this is the critical part–it is the only possible translation that is theologically correct.

Now let’s take a look at the final heresy foisted upon us by the ESV translation committee in James 1:23…

For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.

A stark error that no orthodox Christian can countenance! The one and only theologically correct translation reads as follows:

For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his artificial face in a mirror.

James’ meaning is so much clearer in this translation. I don’t know how the translation committee could have been so misguided.

Regards,
Chris :wink:

2 Likes
274

Hi Chris,

Let me begin by saying that I enjoyed your response. Surely then, you would agree with me in avoiding the use of terms such as “God ordained” for any human derived worldviews - thus science is one human activity that has enabled us to understand our world, but it has not been an activity that has originated in scripture - yet scripture states we should seek knowledge and value what is true. The values and motivation within us (for what is true and good) is derived from scripture and we may say this is God ordained.

The theories of science are human constructs - they may cause us to seek to know more and obtain deeper insights, but the very ultimate goal that we can seek is to have a complete understanding of the world or nature. None of this takes us to God - although those of faith would say that we see more of the glory of God as creator - God has revealed Himself as Creator.

I trust that this makes my comments clear and obviously, I wish you well.

2 Likes
275

Hello Matt,
Evolution is neither chance nor random. It seems to me that your conflict is a product of not understanding evolution.

2 Likes
276

Hello Matt,

Science doesn’t propose anything. People propose things. There’s a significant difference that you are eliding here.

2 Likes
277

You haven’t shown that Joshua’s conclusions are unwarranted.

However, there is crystal-clear evidence that Gauger didn’t even bother to read Joshua’s paper before attacking Joshua; I doubt that Klinghoffer did either.

2 Likes
278

You miss the object of the phrase ‘chance result’ which is not evolution happening but the route that evolution took. Nothing guided/supervised/designed evolution to take the route it did to bring about the human species. That is, if you rewound evolution to the pre-biotic would and then ran it forward again you could have different results and species.

279

Your point here is silly semantics… by science I mean the scientific community.

2 Likes
280

Hi Matt,

Hope your day is going well. If you rewound the coin flip I just performed at my desk, physicists would say there is nothing guided/supervised/design about the process and the result could (with 50% probability) be different.

That doesn’t mean that God does not sovereignly rule over the results of coin flips. It just means that physicists cannot make any deterministic predictions about coin flips.

Similar logic applies to evolution.

Best,
Chris

3 Likes
281

The scientific community is not of one opinion. What’s silly is portraying a large community as being that homogeneous.

2 Likes
282

We can know when the scientific community is pretty much settled on a view (provisionally) because they call it a ‘theory’. Do you even science? :slight_smile:

283

[quote=“Rational_Theist_Matt, post:282, topic:5673, full:true”]
We can know when the scientific community is pretty much settled on a view (provisionally) because they call it a ‘theory’.[/quote]
That’s not even close to the definition of “theory,” and what you are attributing to the community is not the theory anyway. You’re cheating to create a false dichotomy, as Jonathan notes.

[quote]Do you even science?
[/quote]Pardon me? I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

1 Like
284

There has been a persistent and I would add, a naïve approach which has used sentences such as “is rain random” to draw some sort of analogy with random as used in ToE, and “evolution is this, or that – such as, neutral drift and common descent, random variation and directed natural selection” and I am sure many other versions.

It serves all parties to these conflicts and disagreements to understand a fundamental difference between theories such as found in the physical sciences, and those in areas such as biology. This is summarised in a clear manner by Schurz, Gerhard, in Philosophy of Science. Taylor and Francis, 2013.

“The theories of physics and chemistry are connected in a dense theory net. Even parts of biology and psychology (e.g. biochemistry and neuropsychology) can easily be assigned a place in this net. If we switch to evolutionary biology, then we have a relatively autonomous theory net, which does not import many concepts from the net of physical and chemical theories, but does in its turn export central concepts to psychology, human and social sciences. In these “higher-level” disciplines, we find instead of unifying fundamental theories an increasing competition between theoretical approaches in loose combination with factual knowledge. This difference has, presumably, much to do with the highly complex nature of the objects of these disciplines."

The difference has been noted and understood by many scientists, whatever our particular world view and theology.

286

Hi Eddie -

That’s a really good question. I’ve thought a fair amount about it, but haven’t really come to a robust conclusion. I affirm that God exercised His sovereign will in such a way as to guarantee some outcomes. Whether He is guaranteeing all outcomes would require that I land somewhere on the determinism vs. free will spectrum, I think. And the debate over that subject has been going on for a long time both within and outside the Church.

I hate to disappoint my friends, so I fear that my answer might not be entirely satisfying, Eddie. But that’s honestly where I’m at.

Again, thanks for asking.

Chris

287

I was thinking about this in relation to a lottery choosing a winner. We say the outcome of which numbers are chosen is random, but a winner is always chosen as intended.

288

I’m not criticising your caution, Chris, but it occurs to me that in pre-evolutionary days nobody regarded God’s creation of individual species as a problem about determinism. He made what he made.

One reason for that, perhaps, is that nobody considered that “free will” had any application in creation except in the case of creatures with rational free wills - men and angels. They would, I think, have laughed at the idea that “chance” events in nature had anything to do with creaturely free will, and that this somehow limited God’s ability to create a complete anteater with all the fixings.

I’ve never really understood why evolution should limit that creative freedom of God.

289

The problem, as I’m sure you recognize Jon, is that throughout most of human history we have all had an implicit deterministic model running in our heads. God might be determining the outcomes, or natural operations, or some combination of both. But it was all deterministic.

In the past century or so, though, interlopers known as quantum physics and chaos theory have changed the landscape. The foundational assumption of determinism (just choose your flavor) no longer seems so obvious.

That’s why I do not find the appeal to history to be winning. In pre-evolutionary days they would have laughed at “chance” events in nature, indeed. On the other hand, Gershwin had an opinion about those who laugh:

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound

They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly
They told Marconi, wireless was a phony
It’s the same old cry

They laughed at me wanting you
Said, I was reaching for the moon
But oh, you came through
Now they’ll have to change their tune

They all said, we never could be happy
They laughed at us and how
But ho, ho, ho
Who’s got the last laugh now?

They all laughed at Rockefeller Center
Now they’re fighting to get in
They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin

They all laughed at Fulton and his steamboat
Hershey and his chocolate bar
Ford and his Lizzie kept the laughers busy
That’s how people are

They laughed at me wanting you
Said, it would be hello, goodbye
But oh, you came through
Now they’re eating humble pie

They all said, we’d never get together
Darling, let’s take a bow
For ho, ho, ho
Who’s got the last laugh?

Ho, ho, ho
Who’s got the last laugh?
Ho, ho, ho
Who’s got the last laugh now?

291

Hi Eddie -

I have already spoken of how the advent of quantum physics and chaos theory tends to undermine the deterministic paradigm. I affirm that God intervenes wherever and whenever He wills to determine certain outcomes–yesterday, today, and forever. Among these outcomes would be your birth and mine, and our parents’ and our children’s. Whether God has actively determined every outcome–every particle decay, every quantum entanglement, every movement of gas molecules–in the 13.8 billion years of the universe’s history is a different question, however, and I simply cannot answer it.

I am quite sure that God intended to use the evolutionary process to produce a people for His possession, a holy nation that would proclaim His love, justice, and glory. Whether He intended for raccoons to have rings around their eyes, I cannot say.