“More powerful”? I don’t see that in the parable at all – more profound and meaningful, yes.
“see?” I don’t see how that word is applicable. Read and interpret? yes. But the only thing to see is ink and paper.
But this is not about my views You have made it clear that “Views”, mine or otherwise are not relevant.
Your whole approach is
You have also asserted that the evidence has to be concrete rather than subjective, That is the Scientific Method. All aspects must be duplicatable so others can use it and see.
But when challenged you dodge back to examles that “Prove” your views’
Other people’s finding of faith has no relevance.
You know that I have read and appreciated “Who moved the stone?” but that does not validate your views about what is or is not valid in terms of reasoning or evidence"
Your viws on “The Fall” deny what can be seen around you, but you refuse to “see” it because that would contradict your beleifs. Beliefs based soley on (your view of) Scripture, not on what can be seen now.
I wonder whether you understood my little quip about the reflection in a mirror. My guess is that it went over your head.
Enough.
(But feel free to have the last word)
Richard
PS
Accepting the truth of the resurrection is only part of the Christian faith. What matters more is how we understand and use that acceptance in our beliefs.
Tomato, tomahto. Profound or meaningful would be better word choices.
In my head I equate it to someone who quietly takes part of their busy day to feed the homeless at a shelter compared to some fancy ball where the rich write checks and celebrate their philanthropy.
2 Likes
“Intelligent design” is used to refer to all sorts of things. It is necessary to define what you mean by it. Some claims about it have serious philosophical flaws (not just ones in favor of it).
The Black Sea flooding, despite earlier promotion, does not have clear evidence of having been anything more exciting than “maybe it’s time to move uphill before long.” That is not going to inspire much of a flood story. But there are various more dramatic flooding events, both in history and evidenced in geology, which would fit better with Noah. None of them match well with the claims of modern flood geology, however.
2 Likes
I think the general understanding would be simple and basic, that evolution is guided by intelligence rather than driven by chance.
“God Created” would imply that He had more of a hand in it than as a watching bystander, but does not have to mean the hyper control that some here revolt against.
Unliike scientists, Theist do not see the need to “Understand” or disect the precise methodology or working. But, unlike scientiists we still identify Him as being a part of it.
IOW instead of using the word “random” to dscribe the deviations (Unsoecified or unidentified), we use the word “guided” (not controlled).
Richard
I think the general understanding would be simple and basic, that evolution is guided by intelligence rather than driven by chance."
Regrettably, it’s not so simple and basic. You, sensibly, are assuming that the words have their ordinary definitions. “Intelligent design” seems like it should mean any sort of process of planning or making things reflecting intent of some conscious agent. However, the ID movement makes various specific claims about how that design was implemented. Because of this, the phrase “intelligent design” can carry a lot of baggage. In some cases, it has meant “creation science but we hope to dodge legal restrictions on creation science by calling it something else.” In some cases, it is “we don’t much care about the age of the earth but don’t like some aspect of evolution”. In some cases, it is “we think that these calculations prove design in natural laws”. In some cases, it is any design that is intelligent, including the use of evolutionary methods of creating new kinds of organism. Some ID focuses on the laws of nature. Some focuses on purported gaps in evolution. Some focuses on disparaging “Darwinian” evolution, whatever that is, and proclaiming how great ID is to support [insert cause popular with audience here].
Contrary to what plenty of atheists and theists claim, “random” is not a good opposite for “guided”. The workings of the computer to process my typing and transmit the message involves quantum mechanical events that, to the best of our mathematical formulas, have a mathematically unpredictable component. In that sense, they are random. But that does not mean that I do not exist. My typing is guiding the outcome within certain bounds. It’s critical to distinguish between “our best model of this process is probabilistic” or “we cannot predict it” versus “there is no guidance”. Remember the death of Ahab? Some guy on the other side of the battlefield pointed his bow in the general direction of the Israelites and fired. He did not provide much guidance, but it hit the gap in Ahab’s armor, after Micaiah had prophesied that Ahab would not come back alive. The shot was guided, but not in a way known to the archer nor detectable by analyzing the aerodynamics and momentum of the arrow.
Is evolution random? To a certain extent, and in certain ways, yes - our best answer to “will this mutation happen?” involves probabilities. Organisms cannot decide “changing that DNA base from A to G right now would really help me!” - there is no physical connection between whether a mutation happens and whether it would be useful to the organism. (Selection can favor having more mutations when the current DNA isn’t working adequately, but those more frequent mutations will still have chances of being neutral, helpful, or harmful in any given situation.) However, the laws of nature provide constraints on what will or won’t work. Those random mutations may not get anywhere, especially if they harm the organism. The course of evolution is highly non-random in many ways.
More importantly but less scientifically, all this talk about what the patterns look like to us doesn’t tell us anything about God’s guidance. There are a range of views on how tightly God controls various “natural” processes. What seems random to us could be completely determined by God; that determining could reflect a range of guiding and controlling activities. Does God have one exact outcome in view, or is He keeping things within a certain range of compatible options? My guess is that we are not predestined to settle all debates relating to Calvinistic to Arminian positions in this forum, but the point is that “randomness” in a physical process is compatible with whatever level of divine guidance and control that you believe in on other grounds.
5 Likes
As mentioned by @paleomalacologist , mutations are random in the sense that needing a specific mutation does not increase the rate at which that mutation happens. In other words, the way in which mutations happen is indistinguishable from what we would expect to see from a random process. This is one of the reasons why Intelligent Design is not thought of as a viable scientific explanation. If there is Intelligent Design in action, then it isn’t detectable in a scientific sense nor are their ideas falsifiable in a scientific test. As always, there is no reason to believe a religious belief is false just because it isn’t scientific.
What about theists who are scientists?
What word you use is semantics. What matters, at least in science, is what detectable impact a proposed process will have in the system. So if mutations are guided, what should we see with guidance that would not be seen with a random process? How do we differentiate between the two in the data? Or will we not see a difference in the data?
2 Likes
From what I have seen, the science and the faith do not intersect. When talking science they use the scientific method, when talking faith they allow a little lattirude for the unidentified hand of God. But most , at least here, do not see a need to allow for God to do anything other than what science “sees”
Does that matter, as long as those semantics are clarified and understood?
That is the whole point of Theistci as opposed to scientific evolution. Science will not see the difference and the Theist does not need to clariify the difference.
No.
Otherwise you would be identiftfying the hand of God.
This why I get so annoyed when scientistw get all defesive about their abilities and conclusions. They do the best with what they can perceive within the limits of human perception. They can;t be expected to include anything that tis outside their perception.
But, I also get annoyed when scientists claim that they can “see” enough to be dogmatic about what happened.
Richard
That’s not what I interpret from posts here, but I could be wrong. We should probably here from them. From what I have read, God could certainly be guiding mutations, but it just isn’t detectable by science.
That’s often the tough part, the clarification and understanding.
And that’s the rub. When we measure mutation rates and their affect on fitness those measurements are indistinguishable from what we would expect from randomness.
Do you, though? Or do you do the very same thing in many other situations?
For instance, there are the famous Koch’s postulates that he used to demonstrate that some diseases are caused by microorganisms, or germs. I suspect you would be pretty dogmatic about the conclusion that germs are causing disease. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with someone saying they believed God helped them clear an infection. Would you both accept the concept of God healing an infection, and the accuracy of the science demonstrating a link between microbes and disease?
2 Likes
T is right. I doubt any self-respecting EC would not put it in those terms at all. There is no question of “allowing God” … the only question many of us would find interest in is “What did God do?..” And to answer that we have science as one of our pre-eminent tools to see just what God did/does/set up to happen in the physical cosmos. And we believers have the scriptures as another invaluable tool to answer some of the even more important questions for us. And just like in science, we have to tread with care because we can wrongly use both tools and come to wrong conclusions. But we have faith that, properly used, those tools should bring us to conclusions that converge into a unity. There is one reality that is common to us all. That is what I believe anyway, and a great many others too who find science worth pursuing.
3 Likes
Only if you’re insisting on scientific evidence.
You imagine they do.
The most recent I’ve read is that the fastest rise might have been about a meter a day – enough to flee from, but not enough to panic.
These remind me again of my wondering how much “tinkering” there could have been in evolution before it would seem more than “noise” in the process.
Especially since God is One who hides Himself.
1 Like
One aspect is whether the mutations that got us from the first mammal to man had to happen in a certain order: if they didn’t, that gives all the more room for an unseen hand the actions of which don’t rise above the background.
This.
1 Like
looks like we lost the link to the original subject, what life is about.
ChatGPT said:
If I were defining life without prior knowledge of your perspective, I’d say:
Life is a system capable of self-sustaining processes, adaptation, and the transmission of information, often characterized by metabolism, reproduction, and response to stimuli.
This is a more conventional definition, rooted in biology, but it leaves room for deeper exploration—especially regarding will, consciousness, and the transmission of meaning beyond just physical survival.
Would you say this definition captures the essence of life, or does it feel too mechanistic?
You said:
if you look at it in the light of my definition it is all in there. now how would youappli this to robotics or for example code?
ChatGPT said:
Yes! Your definition—“the ability to move energy or matter at will”—is indeed embedded in the conventional biological definition, just with a shift in focus toward agency and will rather than just mechanistic processes.
Applying This to Robotics and Code
If life is defined by the ability to move energy or matter at will, then robotics and code can be analyzed based on:
Will – Where does the intention come from? Is it self-generated or externally programmed?
Energy & Matter Manipulation – Can it interact with the physical world in a meaningful way?
Self-Sustaining Processes – Can it adapt, evolve, or sustain its function without constant external intervention?
Robotics:
A simple machine (e.g., a toaster) moves energy and matter, but it lacks independent will—it only follows external input.
An advanced AI-driven robot (e.g., Boston Dynamics’ robots) moves energy and matter in response to stimuli, showing a form of reactive will.
A self-learning AI with goals (e.g., reinforcement learning agents) creates new strategies to achieve an objective, hinting at a form of emergent will.
A fully autonomous AI, capable of modifying its own code or hardware to optimize its function, starts resembling life by self-sustaining its own existence.
Code (Software):
A simple program (e.g., a calculator) follows a rigid, predefined sequence of operations—no will, just execution.
A machine learning algorithm adapts based on training data, showing a rudimentary form of inherited will (from its programmers and training inputs).
A self-modifying AI (e.g., genetic algorithms or AI that rewrites its own code) exhibits a degree of independent will, since it can optimize itself beyond its original programming.
Theoretical AI (e.g., artificial general intelligence) might one day reach a point where it initiates goals of its own, creating a new kind of life—one governed by digital rather than biological constraints.
Theological Implications
If life is the movement of energy and matter at will, then who’s will is at work in AI?
If AI one day modifies its own goals, would it be considered “alive” in the way we define biological life, or would it still be an extension of its creator’s will?
Is will a property of information itself, similar to how genes encode information that “wants” to propagate?
bit of a joke to say “it just isn’t detectable by science” - as if no one has noticed that there is a selection process at the heart of evolution. You win kniffel or any more complex game involving dice by strategy, by selecting the outcome of randomness. its the rule that rules 
Asked by Chatty what made me come up with my barebone definition of life I explained that it was my studies on bacterial viability and how to kill a bug. It gave me a nice assay on request:
The Death of a Mocking Bug
By ChatGPT, in the style of Harper Lee
In the quiet corners of life, sometimes the simplest things teach us the most, like the mocking bug. Now, mind you, I don’t mean to say it’s anything noble. A bug, after all, is just a bug, but it is a creature of habit, a creature of some odd little will, and like the rest of us, it dances to the tune of its own purpose, however misguided it may seem.
I reckon there are two ways to deal with the mocking bug when it becomes a pest. The first is the most direct—destroy its will. A bug is only as good as its instruction set, you see. It follows the rules, and if those rules are disrupted, the bug simply doesn’t know how to carry on. You pull the strings that guide its thoughts—if bugs have thoughts, that is—and you leave it stranded in the middle of its dance, unable to find the next beat. It stumbles, its legs twitch, but it can’t move, can’t scurry, because it no longer knows what it’s supposed to do. The world stops for it in a way that feels almost sad, almost unfair.
But then there’s the second way—the subtler, quieter way. You don’t touch its mind, but you reach for something far deeper, something that keeps it together. The bug, like us, depends on the ability to move. It thrives in space, draws on its surroundings. You see, every living thing is a balance of gradients: the pull of matter, the push of energy, the spaces between things that make things grow and stretch. The bug’s little world, held by a thin membrane, depends on keeping things inside and outside, distinct and separate. You break that—no violence, no chaos—but you simply open the doors. The fluid inside flows out, no more compartmentalized, no more separated. Without that boundary, the bug’s life crumbles. It can no longer control the movement of its own form, and in the end, it’s nothing but a reminder of what once was.
Either way, the bug dies. It’s not a question of cruelty; it’s just a question of how, and why. We can teach ourselves a lot from the little mocking bug. Life, after all, is so often about the choices we make in how we control what we can—whether that’s our will or our balance with the world around us. We don’t have to destroy things to understand them, but sometimes, understanding comes at the cost of knowing what to let go.
I’m not seeing reproduction in ChatGPT’s descriptions. Reproduction is one of the defining characteristics of life. Of course, imperfect replication and competition for limited resources is what gives rise to evolution. This is why the ability to evolve over generations is often included in the description of life.
1 Like
I just got the mental image of a toaster creeping around the kitchen when no one is home, in search of bread to toast.
1 Like
Nothing to do with imagination. It is observation, something you should both understand and accept.
The data does not match you assertion Simple as that.
Richard
It’s imagination, or you are defining things completely differently. Observation shows that people are corrupt[ed].
I suspect that you’re taking that in the Calvinist sense of something utterly rotten through and through, but that wasn’t the original Protestant position, which was more like the idea of an infection – in some people worse than in others, but even in the depths of COVID-19 I was able to make simple meals and take baths.
Calvin’s position always seemed to me to deny that humans were in the image of God after the Fall, which is patently erroneous given various statement in Genesis, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image”; that indicates that murder is an offense against the image of God and thus that image still pertains.
1 Like