The same authority as a chef would have for saying no, Richard, you don’t put motor oil in the blender just because it works in your car.
There is the root of where you fail to understand: humans don’t decree anything about science! Scientists report what reality shows.
I am glad you were not my examiner. I hope your students get a fairer hearing.
You didn’t read my comment elsewhere then about the difference between animate and inanimate systems. Why would you, I guess. You do not delineate them.
Only to those who will not see. Are you one of them? Science encourages it, and you seem to prefer science to theology.
The clues are there!
Shame they are not explicit enough for some, a bit like parables I suppose.
Richard
First you have to define what it means to be right or wrong. Few things resolve to a simply binary choice.
I don’t think science makes “arrogant assertions”. It makes tentative explanations for the facts in evidence.
Based on your many posts I find that hard to believe.
Without providing anything other than “because I say so” as a reason to question the answer.
It always comes back to this. Ad-hominem
You scientists all seem to be all the same. Throwing a temper tantrum every time someone (Me) refuses to accept your superior knowledge and assertions.
I AM NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO BELIEVE!
I AM TELLING YOU NOT TO TELL ME WHAT TO BELIEVE.
That is beyond your remit and pay grade!
Richard
Edit @Bill_II
I have more time to answer the rest of your post
Cleary you think that the scientific view of evolution is right, correct, true (Choose your adjective) No need to descend into linguistics.
And you have every right to think it. What you do not have the right to do is to declare those thoughts as irrefutable facts that I (or anyone else) must accept without question or dispute.
The arrogance is not in the information it is in the way that information is enforced. (imposed)
Then maybe you do not try and understand what I write. I have never given a definitive version of Theistic Evolution or claimed that there is one. All I say is that science does not have all the answers. NB I said all not none!
Because I am not going to repeat myself or explain myself every time I make that statement. You are being deliberately aggressive and dismissive.
Copy in @Roy , @T_aquaticus , @St.Roymond
What I object to most is the way that scientists (here at least) act as if they have all the information even though they both know and admit that they do not. And then throw tantrums at people like me who criticise that.
No-one here has all the information. Some have more information than others. Some have a lot more information than others.
This is true of most topics discussed, not just the theory of evolition and the evidence supporting it.
This isn’t the least bit surprising. It is expected in a group with diverse backgrounds and interests. It’s actually useful, as it provides opportunities for learning.
Nor does any one here (that I have seen anyway) act as if they have all the information, or insist their views must be accepted without dispute.
What is clear, both here and in the other fora I have frequented, is the inverse correlation between the amount of information/knowledge some-one has[1] vs the amount they think they have, their acceptance that others have more, and their willingness to look things up.[2]
The internet is a vast resource of information populated largely by people who ignore it.
The moment you declare your knowledge great enough to “teach” you are setting yourself up as both an authority and a superior who is listened to not the listener that you claim.
Furthermore, there are both types and levels of knowledge. You can have a massive numbers of examples, but they are all illustrating the same thing so they have only limited value .Nitpicking and correcting are showing off and attempting to show your superiority. Usually, the “difference” has little baring on the topic in hand.
What matters more is the use or understanding of that information /data/ knowledge. It is here that the problems arise. Your view is not definitive, nor is it superior, nor is it “right”. (My view is not inferior, or “wrong”) Get past that and we can have conversations.
Otherwise put me on ignore. Because to all intents and purposes I will ignore you (Only watching for insults and the like)
Richard
I don’t recall anyone doing that. It is possible to learn without being taught.
Generally because some-one tries to use or understand information/data/knowledge that they don’t actually possess.
To quote someone I know
Richard
Richard, I can’t imagine what your beef with evolution might be or is it really with science generally?
I think science can be misapplied but I find that happens more often when in the hands of its fans than actual practitioners.
Do you think it diminishes the role of a creator? I don’t think that is true of scientists here.
Forgive me but I have not hidden or been obtuse since joining this forum. Perhaps there have been too many spats and exchanges that have detracted from any real valuable discussion or understanding.
I wish I did not have to repeat, that I have nothing against science, or the scientific method as such.
Why do I single out evolution?
For the same basic reason any Biblical Christian singles out evolution. I do not think (Scientific) evolution matches the biblical view of God and His creative methods or reflects His being and Nature.
I do not just dismiss evolution or even all the scientific data that has been accumulated. I think that evolution is part of the creative process But…
The sticking point has not changed in over a hundred years. It is the difference between chance and nature making itself, and God creating.
I am not interested in a six day creation. But I am interested in everything being specifically “designed” by God. As it stands, by ToE humanity could be a thick blob with multi limbs and great intelligence (As in War of the Worlds) Scientific evolution is only interested in what works and how it is optimised. Aesthetics? Form? Construction? Complexity? Mechanics? Harmony? Interdependency? Are byproducts of Natural Selection! They have no intrinsic values.
Chance! and Self interest are at the heart of ToE.
The mantra has always been
Evolution has no guiding intelligence
Evolution has no diagnostic intelligence
Evolution cannot plan ahead
Evolution Cannot build (in terms of a deliberate progressive construction)
Evolution has no aims or goals
If creation is supposed to reflect God’s Nature (as in Romans 1) the ToE does not do that.
However, it is the best that Science can come up with as long as it refuses to (cannot) acknowledge or factor in God.
But it works!
That is all I hear. It is as if people are blind to the shortcoming or inadequacies of the theory and refuse to accept that Creation could not be achieved as it is, by chance!
Although the “God of the Gaps” critique was dismissed because of the need for ex-nilo creation, its legacy endures inasmuch as chance and fluke would seem to be inadequate to make some of the complexities and complex systems that exist. The “gaps” where fluke should not be able bridge, are still there (with no plausible halfway houses) whereby the only answer is guidance (AKA God) It will not be visible as God, It will not be identified as God, It will look 100% natural, but it will not qualify as a “small” deviation or change (in anyone’s book)
It is this basic process of “random Deviation” that has caused all the contention. Claiming that Random does not mean chance is self defeating, because it then means there is intelligence (design, or computation)
“small”?
Anything can be made given time!
That is the second most common claim
(And I am fed up with trying to explain or prove the existence of the impossible “gap” or change that cannot be done in small steps) AKA IC.
Net result.
Scientists refuse to accept that they have not got it completely right. The idea that something might be missing (eg God) is beyond them, And they get angry at people like me who refuse to let them “get away with it”
Richard
Edit
NB please do not go down the rabbit hole of trying to redefine IC so that it can be built up slowly.
Sorry to put you to extra trouble but I mostly ignore anything to do with evolution because I am convinced it accurately describes how lifeforms change over time in response to environmental challenges. Sorry if this derailed more important conversations for you.
Sorry but I cannot seem to intersperse my responses into the body of your text in my response so I’ll just truncate that here. I think you are paying the price for reading your scriptures too dogmatically
First of all as far as creation goes, that is really about how does anything at all exist which is way ahead of how life begins to transform - which is the only thing Evolution addresses. There is no generally accepted scientific theory about how everything began. Some will rule out any role for a higher power of any kind while those invested in a written tradition which they insist must be factually true in every regard will insist on reading in any possible conflict and rejecting it for that reason.
I used to think creation as such was beside the point where God belief is concerned but now I see it as more central. But I have no dog in your fight because the Bible is not the mill stone for me that it seems to be for you. From my POV there is no reasonable case to be made for thinking you know everything about God down to what He he did and how as well as what His objectives were. Because my expectations for knowledge about God are so low none of that hangs me up. There is something greater which does seem to have been guiding creation but not in any mechanical way or any other way which we should expect to understand. If I did read the Bible I would not try to extract such beliefs from it. But Christianity is practiced in as many ways as there are denominations (over 45,000 according to Google). If you want to look for what they believe in common about creation I think you’d have to pan out to something much less detailed than what you with your background and experience have come to.
Now RL needs my attention so I’ll stop here. I may come back and see if I have any other thoughts for you but maybe it’d be better if you tell me if anything so far is of use. Later.
ToE does it at least as well as cosmology – the elegance is astounding.
A Psalm of the Designer
Evolution declares the glory of God,
and the chromosomes in cells proclaim His handiwork!
Day to day pours out research,
and night to night reveals studies.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them,
yet their message has gone out to the whole earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.
He has set a tent for DNA,
which sends its messengers out from its chamber
like strong men they run their course with joy.
Its reach is from the birth of the Earth,
its circuit all around it,
and there is no life apart from that reach. selah
O Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory within the cell.
When I look at all life, the work of your fingers,
the nucleus and the mitochondria§, which you have set in place –
What is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet:
all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
Oh Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
§ or, “the plants and all animals”
Your failure of imagination is a poor argument, but really it’s all you have.
That is interesting, because I am usually looked at as someone who does not take enough notice of Scripture. I guess, if you are going to hold something as sacred you have to take some notice of it.
But, it is not Scripture as such that is my driving force against the scientific view of evolution, it is my view and understanding of God.
If that were true, I would not query it. I have always said that evolution is brilliant at adapting and optimising, but ToE does not limit it so.
Abiogenesis is not part of ToE although science seems desperate to find or prove it. Abiogenesis would contradict the spirit of Genesis 1 100%.
The problem i see with evolutionary theory is that it is mechanical, and heartless. It is al very well to see cosmology and meteorology as automated but they ae inanimate. Evolution is about life. I do not see God sitting back and watching life evolve and change with nothing other than curiosity. We are not automatons.. We do not conform to formulae and programing.
I guess my complaint against Original Sin is similar inasmuch as it implies a control or conformity to evil.
I guess I am wasting my time. I talk in concepts and morality and although there are concepts in science, morality is not a consideration. Scientific concepts are driven by data and observation, Theology is not. There comes a point where one or the other must take precedence. For me Theology comes first, obviously for the scientist science comes first. It is not that they are in conflict, more that they do not easily intersect. Christians who live in the scientific community seem to be able to live with the duality. I cannot.
Richard
Concepts are just abstract ideas. As such they are not necessarily based on facts but I guess I understand the difference your were telling.
Theological interpretations may also be based on observations and I assume this is common. If theology is totally untethered from observations, it becomes implausible. What makes theological claims believable is some positive connection to the real universe and/or to scriptures that can be seen and read (observed).
With the scriptures, there is always the question of correct interpretation, and the interpretations reflect worldviews. Worldviews are at least partly dependent on observations about the reality that surrounds us.
Every theological claim needs to convince the audience. In the history, it may have been enough that one authoritative person tells how things need to be believed but today, people expect more before they are willing to believe theological claims. If theological claims are in obvious disagreement with the observable reality, at some point the followers start to question the validity of the claims. I guess that is happening with the traditional interpretations about the creation stories.
Theistic evolution is not the traditional or biblical view of creation.
I think this is what is frustrating me the most.
Theistic Evolution is not ToE, Nor is it Genesis 1-5.
Richard
With the origins of life - which we both agree is not the subject of evolution - it isn’t clear whether science can ever answer that question. So while science should walk away from any investigation of values it needn’t immediately do so where the possibility of abiogenesis is concerned. If it is true that inorganic chemistry can incrementally creep toward organic chemistry then perhaps it can be shown by what steps that could happen.
Perhaps you think that scientists who are also Christians should disavow that possibility out of greater allegiance to the latter. But if they do they should avoid giving their preference the illusion of being based on the science.
Interestingly Phillip Ball, who’s book on how life works I’ve quoted here before, suggests we not think of DNA as a code for directing our unfolding but rather as a cache of resources the organism can call on to face environmental challenges. So agency is an important part of what it is to be alive. Even as we’re being ‘knit together in the womb’ cells are collaborating in making their community which in turn makes us. That may sound godless but it needn’t be but that is only if we insist on seeing God as something like a watchmaker micromanaging each step.
My contention is that we don’t and can’t understand God to that level of detail. That isn’t a failing for God. It simply isn’t necessary knowledge for us to have. As clever as we are we fall short; in part that is why we must believe in something greater. As for what the Bible may tell you, I wouldn’t read it as telling you what we cannot understand. What we cannot understand we should leave in God’s hands.
Tell that to the scientific community. It is their ultimate goal.
As for me, i am happy for there to be some unknowns, I just wish that evolution was not presented in such a way as to imply that there aren’t any. It is that assertion of assurance and certainty that I bulk at. Perhaps humility is not a quality for scientists to display, even if they have it (And I do not doubt that they do) It is a bit like the call to “show no fear”. It is not that it isn’t there, only that it is hidden.
Richard
Why? Life came from the earth, according to Genesis: God told the earth to “Bring forth!”, which suggests that life came from non-life.
So is a Bach concerto.
How can it be? Morality can’t be measured (well, not by physical science; sociologists might disagree).
Not for about a third of my science professors – science was a tool for understanding God, which put it in second place.
Scholars back in the eighth to twelfth centuries would disagree, especially the ones who regarded life as being a dance where the dancers choose the steps. In fact some held that matter itself was designed to have life spring forth from it, and they based their arguments on Genesis.
It isn’t – that may be the impression from science journalism, but science journalism is a poor representation of science.
That is what happens when you concentrate on the words and not the meaning / understanding
The whole point of Genesis 1 is that God created. None of His creation up to life itself had self determination or procreation. That is the whole point. It was combatting the idea that anything other than Him had anything to do with it, Abiogenesis is life without God. “Spontaneous creation”.
I think you are stretching a point and that Bach would be appalled. Besides a concerto is not life in the terms we are talking about. You still refuse to distinguish between inanimate and life.
So it does not have to be considered?
The Hoy Spirit cannot be seen or measured Do you ignore it or claim it does not exist?
As usual you twist my words to fit your understanding.
I guess, on this occasion, I will not be able to put my understanding across to you.
Identifying science as being about God’s actions is not the same as putting God above it.
Evolutionary theory did not exist in the 12th century. Theistic Evolution was not identified as a thing until very recently, however I have been arguing it long before BioLogos came into existence. I know what Theistic Evolution is, whether Science or Scientists have hijacked it or not.
Do not tell me what it it is. You are not an authority on it.
Then scientists should do what all people o with false journalism. Speak out against it. But that is not in their interest (A bit like politics)
Richard
It isn’t, obviously. Not least because, as you keep pointing out, science doesn’t deal with God.
It isn’t, obviously. Textbooks usually mention unknowns. Wikipedia also has a long list of unknowns in evolution.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.