Cancer and Evolutionary Theory

Faith & Science Conversation
233

@Rational_Theist_Matt

In this situation, Matt, I have to agree that Jon is being more than just contrarian (though he does love a good Contrary).

Can I be the first to agree with you that there is an obvious conflict between Theology and Biological Evolution? Yes, indeed!

But that’s why BioLogos was created - - to work out a religious world view that does not reject Science.

You are a Rational Theist, yes? Well, that must mean you would endorse any work that would make Christians less likely to reject science, Yes?

George B.

Job 5:8-10
I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:
Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number:
Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields.

The thoughtful Christian does not quote this verse and deny the Water Cycle that creates rain.
Nor should the thoughtful Christian read Genesis and deny Evolution.

1 Like
234

I take no issue with science and its declarations where it is at theory/fact level and predicated on evidence and not assumption.

On that view, and solely on the authority of the scientific community, one can I think accept the fact of evolution (change in an allele frequency in a population over time), I don’t think that comes into direct conflict with Christian theology or a variation of Christian theology such as found in theistic evolution.

However, I further think that given the conflict you concur with there simply is no way for the Christian to accept natural selection without the caveat of acceptance in science and on its methodology, a methodology including the assumption of methodological naturalism which obviously doesn’t comport to philosophical naturalism or to reality (as we hold to that on foundational beliefs).

On this I identify as a theistic evolutionist but that ‘evolutionist’ is qualified to the criterion set out in my first sentence.

Science is remarkable, successful, and indespensible and science is to be trusted but science is not Gospel truth, nor inerrant, nor unlimited, nor the only reliable means to knowledge :slight_smile:

235

@Rational_Theist_Matt

I think you might be tilting at the wrong windmills. Your basic Pro-BioLogos person is not likely to champion Science in such shrill terms.

Only a few weeks ago I got thrashed when I suggested that BioLogos accepted the idea that some parts of the Bible are erroneous. Hoo Boy!

What I was supposed to say is that BioLogos supporters endorse the idea that while the Bible may contain parts that some rational theists would consider inaccurate - - these difficult texts are inevitably understandable using God’s ability to transmit spiritual truth through the use of symbolism and figurative language!!!

How does that sound to you, Matt?

If you object to the statement, what exactly is rubbing you the wrong way?

236

What you were supposed to say is that BioLogos supporters have a range of approaches to interpreting difficult texts. And that BioLogos’ official belief statement on Scripture is found here: The Work of BioLogos - BioLogos

:grin:

6 Likes
237

What We Believe

[Lays a good foundation]
We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.

[Last sentence is key - - Catholic Church adopts this view]
We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.

[Maybe one more sentence? . . . about how all mortal flesh falls short of the perfection of God?]
We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.

[We never seem to win points for this …]
We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.

[A nice installment to the We aren’t Deists fund!]
We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.

[Good balance between natural law and miraculous providence]
We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as “natural laws.” Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.

[Very good! @deliberateresult never seems to appreciate this!]
We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.

[For those who didn’t understand the earlier point…]
We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore,
we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.

[Last sentence is key!]
We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.

[Could spend a little more on the arrival of Moral Responsibility with the first humans.]
We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.

[God, give me strength!]
We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.

238

I suppose the “current theory of biological evolution” is not the complete story, even if it is true, so Christians should not accept it as if it is the complete story, even if they accept it as true.

2 Likes
239

All science is provisional so there is never the claim to a ‘complete story’.
What I am stating is that the current theory as proposed in established science has it wrong on natural selection.
It has never been natural selection, it is not now natural selection and it can never be natural selection.
If you agree with this then fine… if not, then that is our disagreement.

240

Well I guess that is where we disagree.

This is strange place to draw the line. Natural selection is a directly observable part of evolutionary theory. Even Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham at Answers and Genesis have no problem with natural selection.

Of course AIG disputes evolution because of common descent, the age of the earth, and more. But natural selection is one thing they accept about evolution. In fact, most anti-evolutionists go to great pains to emphasize that they accept natural selection but evolution is not natural selection alone (and in this they are correct).

Even most ID people have no problem with natural selection (even though they conflate this with the modern understanding of evolution). Their objection arises primarily from random processes giving rise to innovations for natural selection to select.

So @Rational_Theist_Matt, you hold an interesting position. It appears you have no problem with an old earth and common descent, but dispute (of all things) natural selection. Perhaps you can explain that some, and point to some other thinkers who see it the same way as you. That might help clarify things.

3 Likes
241

About this point. Darwinian theory focuses on positive selection (natural selection). However, we know now that non-Darwinian mechanisms (like neutral drift, which is not natural selection) are quantitatively more important. This is not to deny the importance of positive selection. It is still important, but it is not as dominant as the old “Darwinian” theory assumed.

This was discovered back in the 1960s and 1970s, which makes it very odd when creationists and ID theorists spend all their time arguing against “Darwinism”. That theory was falsified a long time ago.

1 Like
242

As I’ve already explained (I think) natural selected as proposed in established science is a mindless, goal-less process, something that cannot be true on Christianity where it is a mindful, goal-directed process to necessarily bring about the human species.

244

Hi Matt,

If I understand you correctly, you believe that God providentially directs “mindless” processes like gravity, atomic decay, and rainfall. Why cannot God providentially direct natural selection?

7 Likes
245

I second Chris’s question, Matt. I don’t see why selection deserves a special category in your mind.

4 Likes
246

It sort of goes back to the proverb saying the we cast the lots, but God controls the outcome. I think God is a lot bigger than we give Him credit for at times, and our understanding of His role in sustaining creation is limited.

2 Likes
247

As I have previously stated with natural selection as proposed in established science it does not necessitate the human species appearing on the earth. That is what I am saying no Christian ought accept because, on the theology of Christianity the opposite is the case, i.e. humans could not fail to appear on this planet through the process of evolution. If one speak about God supervening/guiding/designing that process then one is no longer talking about natural selection as proposed in established science but some kind of theistic/intelligently designed process. Gravity, atomic decay and rainfaill simply are irrelevant to this as none of them are speaking directly to what is proposed by science (let’s call that a) and what is proposed by Christian theology (let’s call that ~a). It’s an a or ~a situation, both cannot be true.

1 Like
248

Further comments and response from Ann Gauger from EvN to your comments Swamidass :slight_smile:

249

Why is the tone of Ann Gauger so condescending towards @Swamidass? Is that how we are called to treat one another as Christians? I quote from the article:

Regarding a couple of Swawidass’s points, Sarah Chaffee asks at one point, “Are those serious arguments?” “No, they’re not.” “Scary arguments?” You can hear Dr. Gauger suppress a laugh. “No.”

To say that another person’s arguments are not “serious” even though they were clearly intended to be taken seriously… It testifies of a deep lack of respect for the person who made those points. Especially since we’re talking about Joshua, an assistant professor who recently published a paper on precisely this topic in Nature…

I think the spiritual battleground in these debates is actually more centered on the way we treat one another than on the quality of our arguments. Somebody can completely destroy someone’s line of reasoning, but still be the losing party in God’s eyes because of a lack of love and respect. Conversely, somebody can be completely mistaken but still be the winner by displaying humility and kindness…

I’m addressing this warning to both sides of the debate, including myself. It’s easy to become hardened in the heat of such discussions.

4 Likes
251

Thanks for the heads up @Rational_Theist_Matt. Have my hands full now, but will consider a longer response in the next few days.

252

Isn’t EVN the official “voice” of the Discovery Institute? Isn’t Klinghoffer speaking for them here?

1 Like