I appreciate your willingness to engage in friendly conversation. I am doing my best to reciprocate. Indeed, the most important aspect of our conversation is that we demonstrate to the world that the love of Christ is what impels us.
If I apply the standard you propose to all the sciences, Matt, here’s what I would have to do:
I would have to reject astronomy, because it does not necessitate that there would be an earth–orbiting a particular star at a distance of 93M miles in a particular spiral galaxy–for the human species to live on.
I would have to reject meteorology, because it does not allow that a Jewish rabbi in a small boat would be able to immediately quell a storm by speaking to it.
I would have to reject physics, because the laws of propagation of energy in water (and in which gravity plays a role, as you are no doubt aware) do not allow for the words of a Jewish rabbi to immediately quell violent waves on the lake of Galilee.
Help me out here, Matt. You have proposed an interesting rule about science and faith: whenever established science does not provide a way to understand or predict an observation in the Bible, Christians have to reject the established science. To apply this rule, I find that I must reject astronomy, meteorology, and physics. (And biology.) Is there perhaps a better way to formulate the relationship between faith and science, Matt?
If I speak about God designing the universe in such a way that a particular planet with just the right elements to support life would orbit a particular star at just the right distance (93M miles) in a particular galaxy, then I am no longer talking about astrophysics as proposed in established science. The equations of astrophysics do not predict the existence of our particular planet with particular characteristics in a particular location in space-time.They do predict that many similar planets would be found in many places, of course. But the key point is this: you can’t use astrophysics to predict our beloved planet Earth in a deterministic way based on the starting conditions of the universe. Astrophysics does not necessitate our planet.
So yes, when I speak of astrophysics and God, I have to step outside the boundaries of established science and speak of a theistic, designed process.
When I speak of meteorology and God, I have to step outside the boundaries of established science and speak of a theistic, designed process.
When i speak of biology and God, i have to step…I’m sure you get the picture, Matt.
Hi @Eddie, thanks for the response. I must admit I didn’t expect David Klinghoffer to quote-mine the interview in such a way as to misrepresent Ann Gauger’s attitude towards Joshua. It appears Klinghoffer is doing harm to the quality of the discussion with such an approach.
While the trigger of my response was that particular piece of snark (whether Gauger or Klinghoffer is to blame does not matter for my point), my comment was meant as a more general warning. As you can see, I addressed it to both sides of the debate. I’m sure significant mistakes have been made and are still being made on both sides. That’s why I said, the most important part of the battle depends on our attitudes towards each other as fellow Christians (and human beings).
Whilst the assumption of science is behind all three I don’t believe it is explicity present whereas with natural selection it is, so to speak, in your face.
That is the point of the objection, that science is putting into its declaration something specific that is but based on an assumption an an assumption that is left implicit elsewhere. When so presented in this explicit manner and with statements accompanying that because purely natural the human species is not necessary then the Christian, on its theology has to protest this explicit presentation since it is contrary to what they believe i.e. that evolution including selection had to produce the human species, without fail.
Many TE’s simply declare acceptance of the theory of evolution as presented by science but that contradicts what they actually believe about the human species and how evolution works to necessitate that species.
I can follow your reasoning, but I suggest that we are ignoring the elephant in the room. To put it simply, if God ordained, for example, relativity, than we Christians would be obligated to consider Einstein an Apostle called by God to understand what God ordained. So it is with evolution and Darwin - if evolution is God ordained, than it follows that we must consider Darwin as an Apostle send by God to explain what God has done. Obviously this is untrue and thus evolution is not God ordained, nor does ToE reveal what God has done. I am not saying this is what you and others believe, but I am showing what such statements can mean to those of us who take theology seriously.
I understand that my remarks are at times considered unacceptable by some on this forum, but I am stating verbatim what BioLogos says, and what many on this forum argue for in so many ways.
As a humorous aside, more than one scientist has commented on “physics envy” displayed by some biologists who come up with statements such as, evolution is just like gravity or QM - the point is there is a world of difference between ToE and ab initio QM computations of e.g., molecules.
I think biologists and TEs should not be so keen to promote ToE with an almost dogmatic angst displayed by some - it is, after all, simply a paradigm of biology, and nothing more.
The adjective “natural” in the term “natural selection” helps to distinguish it from the term “artificial selection,” which had been employed for eons before Darwin penned his tome.
Since there is no such thing as artificial astronomy, artificial meteorology, or artificial physics, there is no need for a special adjective when describing the scientific disciplines.
Consequently I suggest that your concern, sincere as it is, is based on a misunderstanding.
I think what you state only helps my case as for the Christian selection would not be ‘natural’ but artificial, with the intelligence responsible for, supervening, guiding selection for the specific goal of producing the human species being God.
I hope all is well for you down under. And I appreciate the humorous touch in your response.
I think you are stretching credibility in your humor here. If I apply your logic to other cases, this becomes obvious. Consider:
If God ordained, for example, atomic theory, than we Christians would be obligated to consider Neils Bohr an Apostle called by God to understand what God ordained … if atomic theory is God ordained, then it follows that we must consider Bohr as an Apostle send by God to explain what God has done. Obviously this is untrue and thus atomic theory is not God ordained, nor does atomic theory reveal what God has done.
If God ordained, for example, quantum mechanics, then we Christians would be obligated to consider Max Planck an Apostle called by God to understand what God ordained … if QM is God ordained, than it follows that we must consider Planck as an Apostle send by God to explain what God has done. Obviously this is untrue and thus quantum mechanics is not God ordained, nor does QM reveal what God has done.
For that matter, we could say that Einstein is obviously not an Apostle, therefore relativity is not God ordained, nor does relativity reveal what God has done.
I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say that any scientific theory is not God ordained and does not reveal what God has done. If you’re simply stating that all scientific theories are incomplete and subject to revision, well I’m completely in agreement. “We know in part,” as stated by Paul an Apostle called by God. If you mean something else, I invite you to clarify.
If the Christian is obliged to label the selection that occurs due to forces like weather and sunlight as “artificial,” then the Christian has no way to describe the selection that occurs due to breeding practices. The entry for “artificial selection” has already been occupied by selection that occurs due to forces of nature.
Yes, we know the forces of nature are ultimately governed by God’s providence. But even though the God-ordained forces are attributed proximately to nature, we are obliged not to call them “natural,” you say. That’s interesting. What could be more artificial than calling things associated with nature “natural”? Obviously, it is natural to call things that are associated with nature “artificial.”
If that’s the revolution in terminology that you want to start, Matt, I bid you Godspeed.
It seems to me that on orthodox Christian theology the Christian is obliged to reject the notion that the human species is not on this planet necessarily but only as the chance result of evolution taking a certain natural route. Also, it seems to me that your objection is ‘artificial’ as it can easily be circumvented by using qualifiers with the term such as divine artificial selection and human artificial selection.
So if EC’s are on board with this then they can’t be accepting biological evolution as currently proposed in established science where the human species is but the chance result of evolution taking a certain natural route and therefore are not here by necessity.
As people have explained to you previously, we can accept evolution as proximate cause while acknowledging God as ultimate cause. Just like you do with every other natural process.
If by evolution you are including natural selection as currently proposed by established science then you are caught up in a contradiction:
Natural selection on established science (a) - this process in no way necessitate the human species appear on this planet, it is but the chance result of evolution taking the specific route it did.
Selection on Christian theology (~a) - this process necessitated the human species appear on this planet and therefore is not but the chance result of evolution taking a specific route.
Both a and ~a cannot be true at the same time and context.
We have been through this with you several times. No one here is saying they are both true at the same time and in the same context. The law of noncontradiction is not being violated. As you have already been told several times, evolutionary creationists accept evolution as proximate cause while acknowledging God as ultimate cause. Just like you do with every other natural process.
Certainly there have been attempts to have one’s cake and eat it by from one side of the mouth have God necessitating the human species appear on the earth via evolution, including the selection process whilst out of the other side of their mouth speaking about evolution, including selection being a ‘natural process’ which if it were could not necessitate the human species appear on earth but I remain unpersuaded that such double-speak is worth much.
As you have been shown, such “double-speak” is exactly what you do with other natural processes and natural laws. So it’s not “double-speak” at all, it’s just a matter of you being inconsistent because you don’t feel theologically threatened by rain but you do feel theologically threatened by evolution. Your hermeneutic is incoherent.
Your previous responses say you have no theological problem with rain but you have a theological problem with evolution. This confirms exactly what I have said.