Does / can God lie?

Faith & Science Conversation
72

And any scientist worth their salt should be the first to see how many unanswered questions there still are to tackle.

So it isn’t so much that things are all “wrapped up” as it is that so far, common descent is the theory that fits (explains) the largest pool of data that we do have - by far. As in there is no other theory out there that begins to make sense of nearly as much and from so many diverse fields.

Unanswered stuff can always be found (so far, abiogenesis may largely still be in that category). But if one takes into account all the stuff that is consistent with common descent, then indeed one can see why informed scientific thinkers do casually refer to some things as being “wrapped up”. In the same way that the case against flat earth was neatly wrapped up long ago.

But common descent isn’t wrapped up in the sense of leaving no questions unresolved.

3 Likes
73

Welcome! Good for you for reading. I have not read that book yet, but I wonder if, after you are done, you would find this response from Dr Haarsma interesting.

Blessings.

1 Like
74

So you say, but I was talking to someone else.

75

Thanks for directing me to the article. I would recommend reading the book not least because it is written by a number of people many of whom are scientists themselves. It is a weighty tome to get through but does highlight quite early on where some commonly held beliefs regarding theistic evolution do undermine core Christian doctrines. These differences they hold to be irreconcilable differences. One other book I have recently read is by Wolfgang Smith and is called ‘Theistic Evolution: The Teilhardian Heresy’. A quite different sort of book which examines Theistic evolution and Theilhard De Chardin’s beliefs from a philosophical and metaphysical perspective. Smith has also had a video produces recently called ‘The end of quantum reality’. I have yet to see this.

76

I’m not familiar with that book; on to the reading list it goes!

My approach as a once-professional astronomer is to to trust the consensus of experts speaking within their field of expertise. I know that trust was justified in my field, because I know that my colleagues were neither stupid nor arrogant nor devious nor corrupt. I extend the same trust to professional biologists, because I have no reason not to.

I feel like it would be arrogant of me to even deem myself fit to try to build a scientific opinion about evolution on the basis of evidence that is waved before me. If I wanted to have a legitimate opinion based on my own evaluation of the evidence, I would have to find the means to study biology to doctorate level at least, if not work in the field for a few years. I have nothing near that! When I cut up a deer, I can just about point out every corresponding muscle and bone in my own body. That’s about as far as my biology expertise goes! :nerd_face:

As I have grappled with this rift and sought to ensure I’m approaching it in a way that pleases God, I have been drawn to watch this video many times over, and read the associated book twice over - https://youtu.be/AvNc0sgaClY

Of note to me, apart from the excellent example set here, is that Todd Wood, despite being absolutely committed to YEC on scriptural grounds, thinks the evidence for evolution is very solid.

3 Likes
77

Thanks. One day…
Here is a discussion of Wayne Grudem’s thoughts on the irreconcilable differences, if you find it interesting.

Grudem’s 12 Objections to Theistic Evolution - Open Forum / Biblical Interpretation - The BioLogos Forum

However, do you think that we should change our understanding of science based on how we understand the Bible?
Thanks.

78

People understand the word ‘science’ in a variety of different ways. Unfortunately, it is often taken to mean an incontestable body of fact. That men in white coats have all the keys and means to unlock the secrets of the universe. However, even a cursory glance at the history of scientific endeavour will show that this is has rarely been the case.

Quite often, what is taken to be ‘science’ and therefore ‘fact’ is built upon many other factors some of which are assumptions that are really quite philosophically shaky when examined. One of these factors would be the belief that human reason possesses the inherent and unaided ability to work out the puzzle with regard to human origins by studying remnants of the past, whether these remnants are stars, radiation, fossils or rock strata etc.

The belief that unaided human reason is the undisputed means by which we measure all things is a huge assumption in and of itself.

However, do you think that we should change our understanding of science based on how we understand the Bible?<

This depends upon what your own understanding of what is deemed to be purely scientific and what is purely speculative or theoretical or what ‘appears’ to be the answer to a problem. In the context of historic Christianity, the Genesis account is much more than a mere morality myth or a naive attempt at explaining where the human race came from. The Genesis account contains the basics of a fully coherent Christian gospel grounded in historicity. As I see- Theistic evolution strikes at the heart of this coherence and historicity and is theologically undermining.

I don’t think I need to spell that out.

People won’t like to hear that, but this is the concern of many Christians, scientists included, who deem the Bible to be the supreme authority over and above fallen human reason.

79

Thanks for your honesty.

My approach as a once-professional astronomer is to to trust the consensus of experts speaking within their field of expertise. I know that trust was justified in my field, because I know that my colleagues were neither stupid nor arrogant nor devious nor corrupt. I extend the same trust to professional biologists, because I have no reason not to.<

We needs must also factor in that Theology is also a science and where it conflicts with evolutionary theories then matters need to be resolved. Non believers don’t have this problem. There are many who believe that current notions about evolution are far less than solid and not all of them are Christians. Keep on studying.

Thanks

80

It seems that God accommodated to the science of the day (see Dr Lamoureux, both a scientist and theologian, who wrote about the Bible and ancient science) @Dol)

God accommodated to our understanding of a geocentric universe, flat earth, three tiered (Philippians) strata, and many other things.

That doesn’t mean the Bible’s wrong in faith. If I tell my little daughter, “The Sun has risen,” it is not a true statement in fact, but she understands what I’m saying.

I would be interested in what you think.
Thanks.

3 Likes
81

Not really. The natural sciences aren’t nearly as prone to overconfidence and flip-flopping as some people seem to think.

Spherical Earth theory came to prominence in the Old World around 2500 years ago and has remained to this day. Geocentrism has been in vogue for 500 years, Newtonian mechanics for 300 years, evolution for 160 years, Mendelian genetics for almost as long, special and general relativity for 110 years, quantum mechanics for 100, continental drift for 60 years, DNA as the basis of heredity for about the same interval. Some of those have been revised but none have toppled, despite decades of unprecedented investment and technological effort in scientific research, that has only served to bolster and refine those theories.

Ok, I need to check my calendar to work out whether butter is good for me, but, physics and biology aren’t like nutrition.

2 Likes
82

We must have a very different understanding of how things have unfolded historically. Quite often, as I have looked into these things, I understand that it isn’t that previous theories have been ‘refined’ but completely overturned and supplanted by later ones.

This continues to be the case.

I am not really sure what you are driving at, however I must say at this point that I am not ‘anti-science’ when it is real verifiable science. What I am advocating is that we have a strong understanding of the difference between science and scientism, i.e. that everything must bow to the latest scientific consensus regarding a particular model as the final ultimate truth.

Classical neo-Darwinian evolution based upon ‘natural selection’ is such a model. Big-bang cosmology is another. Both are theories regarding origins and both have their roots in ‘naturalism’. The belief that everything must have a totally naturalistic explanation. As such, to invoke any form of supernaturalism is deemed to be bordering on the superstitious.

83

I am not sure what you mean regarding God accomodating to the science of the day or God accommodating to our understanding of a geocentric universe, flat earth, three tiered (Philippians) strata, and many other things.

I’m not at all sure what you mean.

That doesn’t mean the Bible’s wrong in faith. If I tell my little daughter, “The Sun has risen,” it is not a true statement in fact, but she understands what I’m saying.<

If I get what you are saying here then what you are referring to is possibly the use of anthropomorphism and semantics, and yes, the Bible does employ these kinds of linguistic devices at times. I think I get what you are driving at in this case. However, the issues regarding evolutionary origins go beyond much further in how they impinge upon the historic Christian faith. If, for example, the classic Darwinian model were to be true then some basic Christian doctrines come under strain as regarding their veracity and in some cases would even need to be discarded altogether. That if one were to accept classical Darwinianism on one hand and some form of Christianity on the other.

Issues concerning how death came into the world, whether Adam was really the first man and whether all the human race is descended from him. Issues concerning the historicity of the accounts, the demonic realm etc… Did God really say? etc… the list goes on. These are matters which which do considerably effect the theology and the ‘gospel’ we are prepared to believe.

These are the issues of concern for many.

1 Like
84

How so? Newtonian mechanics and gravitation actually work perfectly well in most situations. It is only in special circumstances that Einstein’s more accurate equations need to be used instead. Likewise, the Earth is not really spherical; it’s an oblate spheroid, as Newton predicted. But still, telling people it looks like a sphere is correct. It’s only squashed by about one part in 300. And the Earth doesn’t really orbit the Sun; it orbits the solar system barycentre (center of mass… Newton again!) The Sun dances around the SSB due to the pull of the planets (mostly, the gas giant planets.) Again, that’s still the same to look at. The Sun’s dance around the SSB is around 100 times smaller than the Earth’s and only about twice the size of the Sun itself.

Mendel? I don’t know much about genetics. But I do note that the very article you cited says “In fact, the general concepts outlined by Mendel worked so well that they survived right through the modern molecular era.” Excuse any fumbles I make here but I think it goes like this. Inheritance really does work through discrete units (genes) inherited from parents. Each organism really carries two possibly different copies of each gene (alleles), one from each parent, and one of them dominates, determining some characteristics of the organism. And sex cells (gametes) really do only carry one copy of each gene, randomly chosen between the two available, and the genes that make it to the male and female gametes involved in a successful fertilization event are the ones that end up in the offspring.

2 Likes
85

As I have grappled with this rift and sought to ensure I’m approaching it in a way that pleases God, I have been drawn to watch this video many times over, and read the associated book twice over - https://youtu.be/AvNc0sgaClY <

I have watch this video now. Thanks for posting.

Of note to me, apart from the excellent example set here, is that Todd Wood, despite being absolutely committed to YEC on scriptural grounds, thinks the evidence for evolution is very solid.<

I think that this statement by Todd Wood needs to be considered in context i.e the context of his original meaning. which can be found here.

If I understand what I think he is saying, then I would agree with him that there is evidence for evolution in the sense that some of the raw data fits the model proposed by evolutionists i.e that, for example, seemingly less complex life forms appear in earlier geological rock strata and seemingly more and advanced lifeforms appear in later rock strata (my example). There may be and probably are many more examples. With this I would agree with him that this data corresponds to or is consistent with the overall theory. This correspondence however does not mean he believes the overarching theory is correct. With which I would also agree. So when he is saying that ‘the evidence for evolution is very solid’ he is not saying that he believes Darwinian evolution to be the over arching fact concerning origins.

This is what I understand him to be saying.

86

How so? Newtonian mechanics and gravitation actually work perfectly well in most situations. It is only in special circumstances that Einstein’s more accurate equations need to be used instead<

I think that we may be at cross purposes in many respects.

E=MC2 isn’t a refinement of Newton but something entirely different and so is Einstein’s theory of gravitation which is also not a refinement upon Newton.

I am not speaking about whether Newtonian mechanics is not useful for scientists, in a pragmatic way, for working out the movement of celestial objects such as planets. What I am saying is that the theory of gravity as proposed in Einstein’s general theory i.e that massive objects bend space and time never entered Newtons head, the obvious genius that he was.

What Einstein came up with (which was purely theoretical at the time) was an entirely different model about the cosmological nature of reality. This was then later born out by observation. Or so it presently appears on the cosmic scale.

But we may perhaps be getting off the point here.

My main point is that scientific theories have changed over the centuries and continue to change. They are a questionable basis upon which to propose a theology (or anthropology) concerning the origin of man (this is not to exclude woman). Particularly when these theories are based upon the a priori assumption that all of creation can be traced back to naturalistic explanations concerning origins.

Theistic evolution as we read it today is, by and large, committed to these ‘naturalistic’ assumptions which impose a limitation on how the Bible should be understood. I think this is beyond dispute (perhaps not by some theistic evolutionists).

I therefore come back to my original proposition that the first and foremost point of contention is that between naturalism vs supernaturalism.

It is the naturalists i.e atheists who propose that everything has a purely naturalistic explanation i.e that everything unfolds according to the basic laws of the universe from year dot, and then extrapolate this theory backwards in time to propose a theory of origins. I don’t think that anyone would contest this. However it is the Christian theistic evolutionists i.e. those who admit supernaturalism on one hand, but however then go on to fall in line with the naturalists that are proposing (atheistic) evolution as the basis of origins.

I may get the moderator on my back for saying these things within this particular environment, but open discussion, between individuals, is open discussion is it not?

Modern findings suggest that the process of natural selection by itself does not possess the inherent creative power to generate new life forms and that this is in line with mathematical fields of probability along with that of the present understanding of entropy.

What is required is the input of new genetic information which natural forces such as environment, changes in ecology etc. and other natural forces, in and of themselves cannot, inherently, provide.

By all means tell me I’m wrong.

I would invite you to watch this talk by Stephen C Meyer who incidentally now believes that the latest 150 years or so of classic evolutionary theory is now on the back foot and that this is readily admitted by some former Darwinist/neo-Darwinists seeking a new model of origins.

87

You’re wrong. Perhaps in ways you don’t think you are, however.

Naturalists are not atheists. One had to do with belief in God, the other looks for causes consistent with known processes and laws of physics. Atheists may be naturalists, or they may have other metaphysical beliefs that do not involve a specific god. Naturalists may be atheists, or they may be theists.

Ironically, it it s the literal- historical understanding of the Bible that places the tightest limits on how it is to be understood, as, for example, the temple building interpretation of Genesis is compatable with young earth, old earth, and intermediate earth views of age. The literal-historical view limits it only to young, though is inconsistent as it ignores the three-tiered earth, flat earth, and geocentric views that the Bible describes.
Most importantly, by focusing on the materialistic aspects, it tends to relegate theologic truths and teaching to the back burner in pushing the agenda that pays the bills.

Evolutionary theory has evolved, and there is a lot of work in looking at how these things come about. In fairness, does intelligent design have mechanism or evidence that could further our understanding? All I have seen is rhetoric and mathmatical models based on conjecture.

Partially correct, though unchanged classic evolutionary theory as proposed by Darwin has not been held by anyone for the last 100 years, as it has evolved with new knowledge. Current theory will no doubt continue to change as time goes on. That is what happens in science.

4 Likes
88

As I have said before, to moderators wishing to interject into the conversation…
This is a conversation I have with someone else. I don’t consider this moderation, but I do consider it control. If you want to interject your point of view in between the point of view and personal opinion I have with someone else then then why not feel feel free take off the moderator badge?

I am not overstepping any of the guidelines and conducting my conversation with grace and respect for the other person and so do not expect that this conversation as it stands needs moderating.

As I say this is control not moderation.

89

Moderators are free to comment as just like any other participant. If you put something out there for discussion, expect it to be discussed. If something needs moderated, it is usually done behind the scenes. If you don’t want it discussed, the best format is to create your own blog and not allow it. Any response to the points of difference in opinion I voiced?

This appears to be irony… as disagreement is not control but freedom of expression.
Back to your invitation to tell you where you are wrong, I would agree with your statement

Yet, that is exactly what many do in young earth and ID circles, and yes, some in EC circles as well, although EC generally has more separation in the science and theology that some other common views mentioned, where the science and theology are intimately entangled.

2 Likes
90

Yes, but only because he insists (his interpretation of) the Bible must be correct. If he was able to switch off that concern for a moment, and just form an opinion based on material evidence, it would be that mainstream evolution theory is very likely correct.

“There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.”

1 Like
91

Einstein’s laws tell us why Newton’s laws apply. You can derive Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation from Einstein’s special and general relativity, after making certain approximations that in most applications don’t change the answer in any appreciable way. Likewise you can derive Kepler’s laws from Newton’s laws, after making an approximation (that the mass of the planet is small compared to the mass of the Sun, i.e. pretending the planet orbits a fixed Sun rather than both of them orbiting the barycenter).

(NB this is a lowercase ‘why’, which just fits some patterns into a broader or more fundamental set of patterns. Science doesn’t try provide ultimate answers to ‘Why’ questions. Only when religion can do that.)

This is what I mean by those theories have been refined rather than modified. It’s not at all the same sort of radical sweeping change that it was to go from flat earth to spherical earth, geocentrism to heliocentrism, special creation to evolution, etc. And so I would argue that it’s most unlikely any of those theories (including evolution) will ever be subject to radical sweeping change.

On your broader point, I absolutely agree it’s unwise to attach theology to a particular scientific theory. This is the folly of Young Earth Creationism. It is better to insist on not trying to read the Bible as a science text book. As Augustine said:

P.S. I have a bit more to say about naturalism vs theism but will have come back for that later!

2 Likes