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

[Patrick]

@Eddie

The point here is that Patrick has an a priori commitment to finding an undesigned origin of life, because of his materialism

Science (and I) don’t have any a priori commitment to find or search for an undesigned origin of life. Scientists who research the origin of life have an a priori commitment to use all of their prior knowledge as well as new insights to better understand the origin of life on Earth.

And they are coming at it two ways: one from the knowledge of how biological (living) processes work, and secondly from the knowledge of how chemical and physical (nonliving) processes work.
The gap in understanding of the actual process in going from non-living to living is dramatically strinking in recent years. Although there is certainly gaps of our understanding of the biological, chemical, and physical processes involved, I don’t believe anyone would disagree that there was a time in Earth’s history that there was no living organisms on Earth and then from about 3.5 GYA, Earth was teaming with life. Once those biological process(es) took hold on Earth it has never stopped.

[Patrick]

@Eddie

which would never be put openly into words, because that would make the prejudice apparent and threaten the vaunted objectivity of scientists) by 99.9% of all scientists working in the origin of life field to look only for non-design explanations.

Do you really think that there is collusion between 99.9% of scientists to not to seek ANY fruitful avenues of research? Science today is big business. Do you think the thousands of scientist working on the Planck satellite or at CERN are purposely NOT looking for the true nature of the big bang? Do you really think the scientists in the bio-astrological field are NOT looking for the chemical processes involved in the process of going from inanimate molecules to living creatures here on Earth and elsewhere in the universe?

@Eddie

You also exaggerate how “striking” the newest understanding is. What’s known, as opposed to conjectured, about the origin of life is still very little.

This is a factual statement about Earth: There was no life on Earth 4.5 billion years ago AND there was life on Earth 3 billion years ago AND there is life on Earth now. No exaggerations just facts

@Eddie

But what I see in your words is a commitment to atheism and materialism

How does statements of fact lead to commitment to atheism and materialism?

@Eddie

I vigorously deny that current science has anything much more than conjecture about how life could have originated without design

You may vigorously deny the current scientific consensus but your denial doesn’t change what is true nor what is false.

[Patrick]

@Eddie

First, I didn’t deny any current scientific consensus. The current scientific consensus regarding the origin of life – a consensus which you don’t seem to be aware of – is: (a) We don’t know how life on earth began; and (b) We are a long way from knowing it. I agree with that consensus.

No true, we do know how life on earth began. Simple molecules arranged themselves to be self replicating to take advantage of a nearby energy source - a proton pump of some kind. These self-replicating molecules became ever more complex by known chemical processes. At some point in the process, an arbitrarily defined threshold was crossed in that a collection of these molecules that we would say that these molecules constituted life. This life continued evolving using further physical, chemical, and biological process creating endless forms most beautiful.

@Eddie

Second, I didn’t get the atheism and materialism from your current post. You admitted them in a discussion a couple of weeks ago. But they are evident throughout your posts in any case.

Atheism is a rejection of theism as an explanation of our existence in the universe, it is not an alternative explanation.

@Eddie

Third, that the earth at one time had no life, and later had life, I knew from reading popular science books before I was in first grade. So your statement is not news,

But there is a lot of new news in this field of research since you were in first grade. Read the summaries on Science daily and you would get a good feel for how close the science of the origins of life is getting.

@Eddie

you’ve provided not a shred of evidence that they look into, or take seriously, design explanations.

I don’t have to bring that evidence, as I make no claims to any purposeful design in any physical, chemical or biological processes. You on the other hand do claim purposeful or ID, so it is up to you to bring that evidence so that it can be examined, tested, and accepted or rejected.

[Patrick]

Sorry, no offense intended. You obviously have learned a lot about a lot of things since first grade.

While we are talking openly, please be careful labeling people atheist. In 17 countries worldwide, labeling a person with this label can get them killed.

[Gregory]

“I am curious why you continue to post on BioLogos, given that BioLogos starts from premises – the divine inspiration of the Bible, the truth of Christianity, the existence of God, the efficacy of prayer, etc. – which you reject. What do you hope to learn from people who hold views about reality which, according to you, are fundamentally in error? Or is your goal to convert the Christians of BioLogos to atheism and materialism?”

Patrick, while I reject Eddie’s IDism, I thought these were valid questions. Would you care to answer them? Maybe your hope or goal is not to learn anything, but simply to attempt to disrupt people of faith at this venue. Please help us to understand your motivation for communicating here in light of the ‘science and faith’ premise.

[Patrick]

I originally came to Biologos because of their very insightful scientific explanations especially in genetics. These continue to be outstanding and I learn a lot from them. I enjoy the recent discussion on Homo Naledi find. The human genetic discussions are outstanding.
For the record, I am Catholic. My parents were Catholic, I was baptized in St Rocco’s church in 1958. I went to Catholic School and was an alter boy. I was confirmed, got married in a Catholic Church, my kids are Catholic, my family will probably have a Catholic burial for me.

But I have always been a very skeptical Catholic. My first skepticism I could remember was at first holy communion. The nuns told me that the wafer was transformed. My seven year mind couldn’t accept that. So I didn’t. I didn’t accept most things back then. If it sounded odd, I just silently rejected them. As I grew older, my scientific education expanded greatly. I have a PhD in engineering. I live in the town where the cosmic background radiation was first measured.
Most of my life, I viewed everyone’s religion as private and pretty much harmless. I didn’t go to church much but it was okay that my kids went and it was certainly okay that everybody else did (or didn’t go.) Really didn’t care or think to much about it.

Then 911 happened and changed everything. No longer was religion harmless, it could be deadly. And it could be deadly right here. A friend who I coached little league baseball worked for Candor Friz on the 86th floor of tower 1. His son was in my son class when it happened. He was a Catholic, too. From the school window you could see the WTC in the distance burning. I know that it wasn’t Catholics who flew airplanes into building but it was evident to me that people could be talked into believing that God would reward them for killing innocent people.

As I said before, I am here to discuss science and science investigation. I read a lot and pretty much very up to date on what is the latest research findings. But I do find that every discussion on Biologos always goes the same way. Homo Naledi leads to Adam and Eve then to Bible inerrorency then to “you must be an athiest” to Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot. Everytime. Big Bang to Noah to Atheism then Hitler.

I guess I grew up and lived in a part of the country - NJ where everybody was Catholic except a few people who didn’t put up Christmas lights. In general, Catholics in this part of the country aren’t very dogmatic, they kind of go to church (or don’t), but it is generally impolite to discuss or debate beliefs, or the bible, or whether you practice birth control or not. Pretty much everyone is a good Catholic if they don’t kill somebody. A good Catholic is one who has a good family and takes care of and provides for their family and is nice to all the others kids in the town.

So no I am not here to convert Christian to atheism (is that even possible?) I am really here to discuss science. I have read the mission of Biologos and I find it very honest and worthwhile and admirable. SInce being here, I do have a concern. I was under the incorrect assumption that because evolution and the big bang is taught as fact in school (public and parochial around here) that science and religion was mostly harmonized. But here at the premier site on harmonizing science and faith, sometimes I feel like I am in Tenn. at the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Here I see a lot of smart young (and old) people rigidly holding on for dear life things that shouldn’t matter in their lives. Things that whether they are right or wrong won’t improve their lives or their families lives nor societies lives.

[GJDS]

I think very few (if any) people who participate on this site are at odds regarding central tenets of the Christian faith, especially as regards the quality of life, concern for each other, and a benign view of all of us on this planet. I think everyone also rejects extremists who use science, or religion, or any ideology, to justify criminal acts. The discussions, debates, and arguments that I have encountered here, are mostly centred on the weight each of us puts on scripture as it applies on matters somewhat related to our life, but mostly on how it is viewed within the modern/science based context. I for one find that those who do not regard scripture as important, are too often prone to ‘lambast’ those who do, and to come over as if we are inclined to seek falsehoods from scripture - this is a clear contradiction of central tenets of Christianity, which values the truth wherever it may be found.

I am all for a good robust debate, with those who may have different views on biblical teachings (or no views), but am less charitable to those who commence with an assumption (however this is expressed) that unless discussions commence by denigrating the Bible, that any Biblical view must be anti/not scientific, and of dubious worth. If a person wishes to be critical, they should display a minimal familiarity with the various Biblical teachings and then provide a considered response. The same can be said when we discuss scientific matters.

[Patrick]

I disagree, the collective knowledge of all scientific fields is far greater than what you (or any one individual) knows. Are you holding on to the gaps in knowledge so that you can insert your beliefs into them? Do you encourage work (research) to close the knowledge gaps? I enjoy reading about new discoveries. Especially when it uncovers new gaps in our collective knowledge. And wild ideas like moving continents, life in mid ocean heat vents, Denosivan genes in Tibetians. I wonder what is going to be reported in Science Daily this week?

[Patrick]

@Eddie

My statement that you were an atheist was not a reckless guess.

It was reckless in more ways that you may never have considered. I travel to places were people are sought out and killed for expressing skepticism about the state religion. Two Pakistani were recently tracked down and murdered for posting to an atheist website. So be careful with that term.

[Patrick]

@Eddie

The description of New Jersey Catholics that you give to Gregory sounds like a description of secular humanists who want to retain a thin veneer of Catholicism for sentimental or cultural reasons, but have abandoned the guts of the religion.

I think the term used is “Cultural Catholic”. Also the term “Nones” is used for the 23% of Americans who are no longer affiliated with the more traditional denominational church. That is a lot of people and the fastest growing segment.

[Mazrocon]

@Patrick

Science is a very wonderful thing. By nature of the scientific method, it is self-correcting: it seeks out not to prove but to disprove it’s own hypothesis.

But you have to understand that science has its limits, and therefore it’s important to know the assumptions / philosophies that are behind it. For instance… To make sense of science at all you have to make the assumption that the universe works in a rational way… Has laws that govern it, etc. It’s not necessarily irrational to assume the universe works as such. But it’s not scientific to assume this… So you have to ask yourself “what philosophy is behind science?” For instance one can measure light in Kansas and then presume that that speed is the same in Oklahoma.

This might seem like a no-brainer (why would light travel differently in Oklahoma?), but again… Were working off the assumption that the universe is comprehendable and sometimes you have to stop and ask yourself “Why is it comprehendable?”

Science is self-correcting… But remember people thought for a long time that the world was stationary (and they had great reasons for believing so). But now we say the earth goes around the sun. Great scientists like Albert Einstein assumed the universe was eternal, and adjusted his model so that this was possible (albeit a very unstable universe). But now modern cosmology teaches that the universe had a beginning, based on premises laid down by Georges Laimtre, and observations by Edwin Hubble.

Everything we “know” is subject to change (or at least serious adjusting), and is based off of philosophical assumptions. So it’s important to analyze those assumptions.

-Tim