Evolution and God's Sovereignty (and the BioLogos view)

[GJDS]

When we use the term “random” within science, we usually mean some type of statistically comprehensible distribution of end results after a defined action. When scientists have used this approach to understand “random” with the context of genomics and phenotypes, the scientific results is a probability against a random-neoDarwinian outcome that is astronomical. If memory serves, I think one scientist provided a number that may be larger than the estimated atoms in the Universe. Whatever the result from applying stochastic methodologies, the numbers are inevitably against the Darwinian paradigm, and I do not know of any reputable scientist who would dispute these general remarks.

Once this is understood, we may regard the outlooks of various groups. An atheist commences with an assumption, ‘there is no god’, and from this seeks to rationalise these outcomes of science that are against his outlook. One example is to introduce constraints in their version of Neo-Darwinism, and in this way they hope to reduce the odds against such randomness. Another example is to argue for another definition of randomness - a common approach amongst some bio-scientists. Others question the adequacy of neo-Darwinism and get a lot of stick for their troubles.

A theist otoh, needs to question assumptions and seek to come to a better understanding of the scientific outlooks, and asks, why so much debate? Often theists start with, “God is the Creator” and He can direct nature as He wills - this is fine as a generality, but many then accept what is scientifically dubious and try to also rationalise their uncritical acceptance of Neo-Darwinism, and instead imply Christian theology needs revision. This is wrong; instead they should ask, what do we understand by the phrase, “God Creates”. An act of creation by God is not the same as articulating systematically observations we make of nature and declare laws from our observations. God creating all, requires us to try and comprehend time and space, and all that is therein, including ourselves, This transcendental outlook is theologically based, and requires of Christians a deeper understanding than provided by the natural science.

I will not labour the point and I understand the topic requires lengthy theological discussions to reach a mutual understanding. I have made these remarks mainly to point out that terms such as random, obtained from science, should not be used in an amateurish way, especially when we discuss teachings of the Faith. Atheists may be so inclined, but that is their position from the start.

[Mazrocon]

I’m late in the discussion, but I wanted to bring up a few points to mind.

1. Adam and Eve.

If Adam and Eve are the biological mother and father of us all then why does Leviticus 20:17 deem incest as a wicked thing? By Adam and Eve being the sole parents it means that not only was incest inevitable, God purposely brought about humanity through incest. Does anyone have any possible answers/suggestions to this?

2. While reading Collins’ book The Language of God I didn’t get the impression that evolutionary theory made more or less sense whether or not God was involved OR that it’s mindless processes — at least by Francis anyway. I don’t doubt his faith in Jesus is sincere, however, I wish he could have elaborated on this point.

3. I wonder if one can think about evolution in a somewhat similar sense to the genealogy line of Jesus. By reading Matthew’s genealogy you would think it’s a very straightforward and linear process… Until you read the Old Testament.

A. The heir must go through Noah, but first he must construct a huge ark for a hundred years — by faith.

B. Next the seed will go down through Abraham, but there we have problems. Sarah is old and can’t bear children — thus God intervenes.

C. This problem of infertility continues again through Jacobs wives — as they are recorded picking mandrakes.

D. The line goes next trough Judah, but only after getting tricked by Tamar, to have sex in the first place.

E. Now the Israelites have to endure 400 years of hard bondage — (when is this messiah gonna come?)

F. But the battle isn’t over yet… Now the Israelite have to wander through the wilderness for 40 years and fight off starvation. Nonetheless God intervenes and provides for them.

G. The line goes through Ruth, a poor Moabite.

H. The line continues through David, the youngest of eight sons, who gets chanced into defeating a giant, with nothing but a sling and a few stones.

I. That same David, gets attacked by Saul numerous times — yet he still survives long enough to beget Solomon.

J. The Babylonians eventually take Israel captive for their wickedness — (still waiting for that Messiah…)

K. After the Roman Empire takes control of Judea, the Angel finally appears to Mary with the good news… But there’s still a chance Joseph could do the worst and turn her in … But an Angel appears to him to say she is telling the truth… And amazingly he believes the dream.

L. Next Mary has to travel hundreds of miles on a donkey WHILE pregnant.

M. Narrowly avoiding a slaughter by Herod, yet again an angel comes to Joseph to forewarn her of Jesus’ impending doom.

If you’re with me so far the chances of Jesus being born, in the way he did, in the fashion/time and place he did (backwater town like Nazareth) is pretty much nil… But nonetheless it happened. God intervened several times to make this happened, WHILE people were going about their daily lives, unaware of what was going on.

I’m not saying that evolution took place like this, but it isn’t hard for me to imagine it, based on the “chaotic-ness” of Jesus’ lineage. When you walk around a crowded city it feels incredibly random and meaningless… But that’s just because of our limited human cognition. Nonetheless we believe Gods hand is behind it.

The probability arguments are really only a problem for atheistic naturalists.

[Patrick]

The ID approach is not needed either. The universe looks the same ID or no ID.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

That’s what I had in mind by my claim.

Also a reasonable criticism.

[Patrick]

When I look at a cell, I see an amazing piece of life. I might feel dread if it was a cancer cell from my own body. But the reasoning part of my brain would want to know how the cell is made, how it functions, how it lives, all of its properties, what is it made of, how is it similar or different to other cells, how it reproduces, how will it harm me. I ask questions and do research. I am surprised to learn new things about it that doesn’t fit with my pre-conceived notions on “how it is suppose to be”. I don’t rule out anything until it is falsified. But once something is falsified, it is no longer considered provisional truth.

[Mazrocon]

I think Eddie has some good points about evolution “fitting in” with God’s sovereignty … How does God run it if it’s supposedly “randomness”…?

On the other hand there’s passages like Job (and many other places) that seems to imply God controls the weather: it is He that brings up the water drops that distill as rain from the mist. Does out ability to predict the weather (in small instances, the weather is complex) mean that God is no longer acting?

I think you’ve stated earlier, Eddie, that the consensus of Church History shows the belief of an original pair (Adam and Eve) that are the biological parents of humanity is well supported. I’m curious about how the Church Fathers dealt with the idea of God purposely bringing about humanity through incest? There’s both the moral issue and the scientific issue. Leviticus 20:17 condemns it as evil. And scientifically, by what we observe in today’s world, shows that incest brings about major defects.

I’ve asked this question more in depth in the section Theology & Philosophy, if you have further insights.

The proposition that there were multiple people (perhaps hundred to thousands or even more) living side-by-side with Adam and Eve doesn’t have to do with evolution per say… But it’s by no means a small topic.

-Tim

[Joao]

@Eddie

Oddly enough, the scientists who actually work in the the field of trying to find a naturalistic origin of life on earth, i.e., the biologists, biochemists, geochemists etc., assert exactly the opposite of what you say here.

Then you should have no problem supporting your claim. I think it’s fair to expect you to provide five such quotes. No secondary sources. Exactly the opposite of what Patrick wrote, don’t forget!

Patrick is correct. Your “first cell” scenario is a hopelessly naive straw man. Of course, this straw man is a staple of evolutionary denialism.

Those of us who understand the most basic biochemistry and biophysics of lipids and membranes do understand that cellularization wouldn’t occur as the “assembly” you propose here–just as today, in a cell in 5’ real time we can’t draw any lines between an early endosome and the recycling endosome it eventually becomes–all the same mechanisms are involved. Evolutionarily, the idea of “the first endosome” is nonsensical for the same reasons as “the first cell” is.

So they do imagine that there was a first cell that formed on the earth. You can read about their theories in various places. I would recommend starting with Signature in the Cell.

Are you kidding? Isn’t that the same book that will tell me that the most important and famous ribozyme in the world, peptidyl transferase, is a protein?

Most of them believe that the origin of life is a very tricky thing and would not have occurred on the earth more than a few times, and maybe only once.

No, they neither hypothesize that “the origin of life” = “the first cell” nor that the initial events occur rarely. Such events are probably happening all around us every day, but their yield can’t compete with existing life. Maybe you’re confused as they do hypothesize that only one or a few such origins gave rise to existing life.

I suggest expanding your reading beyond ID apologists and outlying former empiricists who have retired to selling books, particularly before making broad, completely unsupported claims about what everyone in a scientific field “imagines” or “believes.”

And as Daniel keeps pointing out to you very eloquently, none of this is incompatible with God. And as Christy points out just as eloquently, you are demanding far more from others than you are willing to provide yourself.

[Joao]

@Christy

It’s my understanding that when an atheist uses the term “natural” or “random” they mean God is simply not involved.

I think that your understanding is deeply flawed on this matter. When a scientist (many of whom are atheists) uses the term “random” scientifically, it is simply a negative statistical conclusion (and therefore relatively weak) and does not carry any of the theological baggage you are attaching to it.

Remember, Dawkins stopped being a scientist many years ago.

@Christy

Is anyone claiming that we should view every mutation that eventually gives rise to a new species as a miracle?

I think you might want to back up here and ask whether anyone who really understands evolutionary theory views single mutations as the signal event in giving rise to new species. Do you realize that the number of new mutations required for speciation is zero? That there’s an enormous reservoir of existing genetic variation that dwarfs the tiny contribution of new mutations?

Put more simply, would you predict that if God stopped all mutations from occurring tomorrow, then evolution would come to a screeching halt tomorrow?

[Joao]

@DanielPBurnham

I mean, if man is capable of influencing the process of evolution to produce different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, and plants, how much more capable is God of directing the process in whatever direction he wants. Being omnipotent, all God would really have to do is will the appearance of Man and the evolutionary process would take whatever route it needed to for Man to appear on the scene. It’s pretty straightforward.

Exactly, Daniel.

Your point shows why intelligent design creationism is bad theology. It actually diminishes God by stuffing Him into gaps.

[Joao]

[quote=“Eddie, post:79, topic:2555”]
But I maintain that my statement is correct: no current full-time origin of life researcher known to me claims to have anything like a detailed or clear account of how life – cellular or sub-cellular – originated.[/quote]

That’s not your statement, Eddie.

Your statement is:

[quote]the scientists who actually work in the the field of trying to find a naturalistic origin of life on earth, i.e., the biologists, biochemists, geochemists etc., assert exactly the opposite of what you say here.[/quote] What Patrick said was, “There was no first cell forming but many groups of pre-cell existing and replicating. Millions of first cells appeared and the pre-cells continued to exist and relicate.” That’s the only way evolution works, whether with populations of RNAs, protocols, cells, or organisms.

Your claim is yet another variant of the “one organism changes into another” straw man. Your rhetorical trick is to relentlessly misrepresent evolution as happening to single entities and ignoring populations, because populations are the conceptual key to understanding evolutionary theory.

But if I’m wrong, I’m sure you can show me the statements of origin-of-life experts who think they have an account of the origin of life that requires no design at all; if so, trot out their statements to that effect.

I think you know that my challenge has nothing to do with design. It’s about whether scientists that actually work in the field imagine or believe that anything ever existed that one could call “the first cell” and would be distinguishable from an ancestor that one would call “not a cell.” I accept your tacit retraction of your false claim.

If you can provide enough statements, I will retract my generalization and change it to “many” origin-of-life experts.

Such a change would be just as false, as I don’t know of any who actually work in the field who would hypothesize that there was a “very first cell” and would disagree with Patrick, which would include one of my colleagues, one the foremost theoreticians (!!!) in the field of organelle evolution. So what sort of statement would this be? Wouldn’t it be easier for you to produce the alleged positive statements? After all, you’re even claiming to know their beliefs and imaginings.

But of course, in your concentration on trying to “catch me out,” you are missing the point here. The point here is that Patrick has an a priori commitment to finding an undesigned origin of life…

No, my point here is that you seem to have a commitment to gross misrepresentation of the relevant science. Remember your pretension that Behe’s assumption–that evolution involves lots of de novo protein-protein binding sites–was a fact? Without that assumption, Behe’s whole book becomes irrelevant. The assumption is easily testable, but Behe never bothers to support it, correct?

There’s also your touting of Meyer as an authority on this matter. How many of Meyer’s factual claims have you checked for yourself? If you’re making explicit claims about what those who actually work in the field propose, shouldn’t you be explicitly familiar with their actual work?

[Joao]

@Eddie

Joao has confused intelligent design with creationism – which is standard operating practice for both TEs and atheists.

The Dover trial legally proved that ID evolved from creationism.

Note that even this case of cultural evolution is more representative of biological evolution than your “the very first cell” or “one organism evolved into another,” because creationism still exists.

Note also that “the very first cell” or “So they [those who actually work in the field] do imagine that there was a first cell that formed on the earth,” is just an attempt to create an entirely fictional scientific gap in which to constrain and diminish God. You’re not content with real gaps!

[Joao]

@Eddie

No, I’m not claiming that we should routinely view the rise of new species as miracles – though they might be, in some cases. (By the way, “species” is not a very important biological frontier, in comparison with “body plan,” but that doesn’t concern us here.)

It’s my understanding that the primary reason for evolution denialism among traditional evangelicals is absolutely the species frontier as it relates to the species H. sapiens. Nothing whatsoever to do with body plans. I’ve never heard evangelicals discussing protostomes vs. deuterostomes, for example.