EC and Romans 1:19-20

[MarkE]

@Christy

@MarkE

One might concede that even if EC bolsters a charge of god-of-the-gaps by some, so be it.

But it doesn’t. That’s ID. EC is never saying, we don’t have an explanation for X so therefore God did it, and where we do have an explanation for Y, nature did it. They are saying God did all of it, but we can’t scientifically describe God’s action.

Beg your pardon, I meant even if EC bolsters a charge of God being rendered unnecessary by Occam’s razor.

@Christy

@MarkE

In a similar but different way, a disquieting question for EC is, why did God conceal his creative actions from modern science?

It isn’t about God concealing anything, it’s about the nature of science. God is outside nature, supernatural. Science only has the tools to study the natural and by its own definitions and established methods, cannot posit or study supernatural causes and effects. This is an epistemological limitation that science has put on itself, not something God did or didn’t do.

But that’s not the case. Violations of natural laws in scripture demonstrate otherwise:

• walking on water - law of gravity
• calming the storm - laws of physics
• water into wine - laws of chemistry
• raising of Lazarus - 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy)

Witnesses responded to these miracles with fear and belief in the presence and powerful supernatural action of God. Still some rejected this conclusion, which in the face of such evidence is condemned as unjustifiable unbelief: Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (Matthew 11:20). The implication of the evidence is plain, but receiving it is spiritual—it is only by the sovereign grace of God that anyone is able to believe.

And, to be sure, any specific knowledge of the one responsible for such supernatural action is beyond the reach of science.

A question for us is, for example, does the formation of living matter from nonliving constitute such an event, based on a scientific assessment of the operation and limits of natural laws? Biologos allows for this possibility:

“God could have created the first life through regular processes, or God could have done a miracle. In either case, BioLogos affirms that God is the creator and sustainer of all life, from the first life form to each of us. If consensus for a particular scientific explanation emerges, we will celebrate, because we will have more insight into God’s handiwork. Yet no matter how far science progresses, we can never exhaust the wonder and gratitude we feel for God’s good gift of life.” How Did Life Begin? - BioLogos

@Christy

@MarkE

One way around this might be to completely front-load biological information at the Big Bang to avoid the need for ongoing tweaks, but that creates its own problems. On the other hand, the hybrid of a supernatural backdoor drip-feed of information in tandem with the (claimed) generation of information by the natural process of evolution does not sit well—with me anyway…

You still seem to be viewing God’s creative agency as primarily some kind of information-loading activity, which is not how God’s interaction with his creation is described in the Bible. It’s pictured as parenting, shepherding, ruling, managing, directing, designing, not programming or engineering. Granted programming and engineering were not viable metaphors in the ANE, but still, if we have revelation that points to a certain picture of God, why chuck all those in favor of a different picture?

I’m not chucking them out. Rather, on a forum discussing evolutionary creation, it is surely appropriate to focus on science and possible modes of God’s creating.

Psalm 139 is wonderful poetry, which for me is enhanced by the lens of science. A few years ago I annotated this psalm as follows (I’m not trained in the biology quoted, but you get the vibe):

For you formed my inward parts;
Fertilized oocyte, zygote, pronuclei
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
morula cell division, blastocyst formation
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
loss of zona pellucida, free blastocyst, attaching blastocyst, implantation
Wonderful are your works;
extraembryonic mesoderm, primitive streak, gastrulation
my soul knows it very well.
primitive pit, notochordal canal
My frame was not hidden from you,
Somitogenesis: Somite Number 1-3 neural folds,
cardiac primordium, head fold, neural fold fuses
when I was being made in secret,
Somite Number 13 - 20 rostral neuropore closes
Somite Number 21 -29 caudal neuropore closes
Somite Number 30 leg buds, lens placode, pharyngeal arches
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
lens pit optic cup, lens vesicle, nasal pit, hand plate
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
nasal pits moved ventrally, auricular hillocks, foot plate
in your book were written, every one of them,
finger rays, ossification commences, straightening of trunk
the days that were formed for me,
upper limbs longer and bent at elbow, hands and feet turned inward
when as yet there was none of them.
eyelids, external ears, rounded head, body and limbs.
Psalm 139:13-16

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@MarkE

But that’s not the case. Violations of natural laws in scripture demonstrate otherwise:

• walking on water - law of gravity
• calming the storm - laws of physics
• water into wine - laws of chemistry
• raising of Lazarus - 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy)

Miracles demonstrate science has the tools to study the supernatural? How is that? The fact that science can’t study God or God breaking in to our natural reality doesn’t mean miracles can’t happen or people can’t observe miracles. It means there is no scientific explanation for what was observed. Empiricism and logic are not the only sources of knowledge/truth available to humans. We also have our experiences and we can experience spiritual realities.

@MarkE

A question for us is, for example, does the formation of living matter from nonliving constitute such an event, based on a scientific assessment of the operation and limits of natural laws?

How can we possibly acquire the knowledge to answer this question? We can’t observe the creation of life and as of yet, we can’t replicate it. All we have is the revelation that God created life.

@MarkE

I’m not chucking them out. Rather, on a forum discussing evolutionary creation, it is surely appropriate to focus on science and possible modes of God’s creating.

I’m just engaging the discussion, not telling you to sit down.

[MarkE]

@Christy

@MarkE

But that’s not the case. Violations of natural laws in scripture demonstrate otherwise:

• walking on water - law of gravity
• calming the storm - laws of physics
• water into wine - laws of chemistry
• raising of Lazarus - 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy)

Miracles demonstrate science has the tools to study the supernatural? How is that? The fact that science can’t study God or God breaking in to our natural reality doesn’t mean miracles can’t happen or people can’t observe miracles. It means there is no scientific explanation for what was observed. Empiricism and logic are not the only sources of knowledge/truth available to humans. We also have our experiences and we can experience spiritual realities.

You made two claims: that science cannot posit or study supernatural causes and effects.

I explicitly acknowledged that science cannot study supernatural causes: “And, to be sure, any specific knowledge of the one responsible for such supernatural action is beyond the reach of science.”

I also provided a reasoned argument as to how science can, however, posit supernatural action.

Not meaning to be rude, but your selective quoting of what I’ve written and your response seems to indicate that you’re evading or misunderstanding my point.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@MarkE

I also provided a reasoned argument as to how science can, however, posit supernatural action.

The you are using science to mean “people who observe things” and I am using science to mean people using the scientific method. Supernatural action cannot be part of a scientific hypothesis.

[MarkE]

@Christy

@MarkE

I also provided a reasoned argument as to how science can, however, posit supernatural action.

The you are using science to mean “people who observe things” and I am using science to mean people using the scientific method. Supernatural action cannot be part of a scientific hypothesis.

No, I’m using the term science to mean application of the scientific method where, should that lead to a robust deduction that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation, provisionally posit supernatural action. To do otherwise would suggest an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@MarkE

…should that lead to a robust deduction that there is no plausible naturalistic, provisionally posit supernatural action.

I think that you and Christy agree that there can be miracles, not explained by scientific means. The point of disagreement seems to be that you feel that science can reach the conclusion that there are miracles. Can you give one example of that?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@MarkE

No, I’m using the term science to mean application of the scientific method where, should that lead to a robust deduction that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation, provisionally posit supernatural action. To do otherwise would suggest an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism.

I think we disagree on what counts as science then. Science has an a prori commitment to methodological naturalism and that is a feature not a bug.

[MarkE]

@jpm

@MarkE

…should that lead to a robust deduction that there is no plausible naturalistic, provisionally posit supernatural action.

I think that you and Christy agree that there can be miracles, not explained by scientific means. The point of disagreement seems to be that you feel that science can reach the conclusion that there are miracles. Can you give one example of that?

Abiogenesis, potentially:

Can science provide evidence for supernatural agency?

To be clear, I’m not advocating god-of-the-gaps thinking, and acknowledge the risk of falling into it. Rather, I’m considering the possibility of situations where scientific evidence might reasonably suggest divine action. A key qualifier is, has the field in question had sufficient time to thoroughly search for naturalistic explanations? Of course, that’s a subjective assessment, and so this will be an “on the balance of the evidence” individual judgement. Here’s an illustration of what I’m …

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

I can see that that might be the case, but see no way science could show that. Even if life is shown to have arose on alien planets, God could have done that also by miraculous means So ultimately, that becomes a faith issue, not one of science.

[Terry_Sampson ([UILA])]

Isn’t there a story about a person who claims to have been abducted and forced to live out the remainder of his life on Earth?

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@MarkE

I’m using the term science to mean application of the scientific method where, should that lead to a robust deduction that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation, provisionally posit supernatural action.

I actually think that is fair in principle. However, I have yet to encounter a convincing example despite a long succession of people determined to make one stick. Given that, I doubt nature will ever oblige.

@MarkE

Abiogenesis, potentially:

Life from non-life is a tough threshold. However, the challenge is to demonstrate that all proposed ideas are not plausible, or there is not some path we merely have not yet discovered. As we cannot claim to be omniscient, that is pretty much ruled out. While scenarios for abiogenesis may not be compelling, arguments that it is impossible are even less so.

[MarkE]

@rsewell

@MarkE

I’m using the term science to mean application of the scientific method where, should that lead to a robust deduction that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation, provisionally posit supernatural action.

I actually think that is fair in principle. However, I have yet to encounter a convincing example despite a long succession of people determined to make one stick. Given that, I doubt nature will ever oblige.

@MarkE

Abiogenesis, potentially:

Life from non-life is a tough threshold. However, the challenge is to demonstrate that all proposed ideas are not plausible, or there is not some path we merely have not yet discovered. As we cannot claim to be omniscient, that is pretty much ruled out. While scenarios for abiogenesis may not be compelling, arguments that it is impossible are even less so.

Yes, it’s the challenge of saying there are no black swans: how much searching must you do before it’s reasonable to make a provisional declaration, and how can you be sure a black swan won’t subsequently be found?

Abiogenesis research might reach a point of stagnation such that on the balance of probabilities, consideration of direct supernatural intervention becomes a reasonable option, though not a proof.

There is another possibility: that it be shown that life violates a natural law. A popular attempt is with the second law of thermodynamics. A related approach which seems to me to have some merit is the possibilty of formalising a law of conservation of information. Or, another related angle—and a longshot—is consensus on a probability calculation > a miracle threshold (10^50…10^500?).

[MarkE]

@Christy

I think we disagree on what counts as science then. Science has an a prori commitment to methodological naturalism and that is a feature not a bug.

I suspect we largely agree on what counts as science, which would be evidenced by a mutual endorsement of the widespread application of methodological naturalism. Our disagreement I think is over definitions and rules of engagement at the boundary of science.

Both evolutionary atheists and evolutionary creationists tend to discount any connection between science and the supernatural at this boundary, whereas creationism and ID go the other way, and tend to see God where science lacks adequate explanations (whether this is a god-of-shrinking-gaps or the God-of-growing-gulfs, only time will tell, and probably never conclusively).

As an aside, I read about your Bible translation work, which was a reminder to me to maintain the unity of the Spirit and our fellowship in Christ (not that this discussion has worked against that). I have much appreciated your engagement here, and Biologos for providing and moderating this valuable forum.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@MarkE

Both evolutionary atheists and evolutionary creationists tend to discount any connection between science and the supernatural at this boundary, whereas creationism and ID goes the other way, and tends to see God where science lacks adequate explanations (whether this is a god-of-shrinking-gaps or the God-of-growing-gulfs , only time will tell, and probably never conclusively).

Yes, I think there is disagreement about when one is moving from the discourse of science into another realm like philosophy or theology or metaphysics. And it is at the boundaries of science that people disagree on where the line is crossed. Because evolutionary creation is a perspective on reality, not a scientific model, there is nothing wrong with speculating about God’s action or intervention in the natural order of things, and I think you can certainly argue that your deductions are reasonable and follow from the things Christians accept as givens based on revelation or on experience with God as Christians. People just get touchy when you label those deductions scientific. For me, some of it is wanting to play fair, because I want to be able to call atheists on it when they import their philosophical/worldview givens and truth claims into an argument and then call their deductions scientific.

[Randy]

Great question. Randal Rauser discusses this passage here with empathy in relation to atheists, agnostics, and Mother Theresa. You may alo appreciate it, if you get a chance to read it.

Thanks.

https://randalrauser.com/2011/01/for-since-the-creation-of-the-world-on-the-wickedness-of-atheism/

And some others on the same subject:

The night Dr. Z became an agnostic - Randal Rauser

https://randalrauser.com/2016/03/do-atheists-marginalize-god-do-apologists-marginalize-atheists/

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Just thinking out loud (digitally ; - ) – What about God’s providential M.O., his demonstrable interventions into his children’s lives, in timing and placing? They are not scientifically replicable of course, but they do have a readily recognizable ‘forensic’ feature, namely infused snd objective meaning which has no other explanation or reason for being there.

[MarkE]

Good set of levels, thanks for sharing.

[MarkE]

Thanks - I’m saddened by stories of people’s faith struggles when confronted by the worlds brokenness.

[Michael_Schellenberg (Michael Stephen Schellenberg)]

After 50 years learning to listen for the “… still, gentle voice…” in a world ‘going off the rails’, it is only my ever growing faith & almost daily validation that He is coming soon that finally causes me to wake from my slumber and blow the shofar! God Bless you as you seek Him!