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

[Joao]

[quote=“Eddie, post:152, topic:2555”]
Having won a science scholarship…tedious bragging omitted… The current discussion provides another example.[/quote]

Eddie, your posts show no understanding of evolutionary theory at any depth. This conclusion is consistent with your bragging about reading thousands of pages of ID rhetoric coupled with your resolute avoidance of data.

Our study of past states of the earth appears to inform us that at one time (you pick the date) there were no cells on the earth.

Correct so far!

Observation today tells us that there are cells on the earth, and lots of them. And we know that cells today are produced by earlier cells. So we can reason back to a time when there were fewer cells on the earth than there are now. Now, there are only two possibilities.

That’s an empty and silly assertion.

Either independent lines of origination produced a number of different ancestral cells, or some mode of origination produced one cell from which all cells since have descended.

Nope. You fail fundamental evolutionary theory, because you’ve failed to include the far more likely possibility: one or more populations of entities gradually evolved cellularity, in such a way that no 5 people, even experts, would agree on a point at which an entity is alive or not alive, or cellular or acellular. There’s no requirement for independence, and it’s far more likely based on biochemistry and biophysics that they would have been interdependent. So no one in the field draws the bright white line that you are falsely attributing to them.

Theologically, let me add that there’d be zero need for you to resolutely misrepresent OOL research by pretending there was “the very first cell” or that “the very first life” was necessarily cellular if you did not realize at some level that stuffing God into gaps in our knowledge greatly diminishes Him. If God is omnipotent, you don’t need to use blatant falsehoods to create or enlarge the gaps you stuff Him into. It really is just as simple as Daniel says it is.

By the way, remember your claim that those actually working in the field all agree with the second possibility of your false dichotomy? Have you found a single one yet?

If the latter, then there was a “first cell” to which all of us owe our existence. If the former, then either the different ancestral cells sprang into existence at exactly the same moment, so that it is impossible to say which cell was “first”, or one of the ancestral cells came into existence before the others, in which case that cell was “first.”

Eddie, your false dichotomy is simply absurd. Even more absurd is your false attribution of this absurdity to those actually working in the field.

So unless one holds to the view that a number of cells sprang into existence simultaneously, it is logically inescapable that there was a first cell upon the earth.

Your dichotomy is false.

[quote]Nothing that the most advanced Ph.D. in molecular biology, origin of life, etc. could possibly say or argue could refute this conclusion, because it is a conclusion of logic, and logic does not depend on any advanced knowledge of any particular science; logic concerns rational necessities.
[/quote]Your logic is based on a blatantly fallacious and false premise. That’s covered in basic courses and you should know better.

[Patrick]

@TimothyHicks

While I can’t speak for every single religion out there, I just want to let you know that telling a Christian not to advertise their beliefs (though I know you meant well) is basically telling them, don’t be a Christian. In the book of Acts, new-found Christians like Stephen were martyred, as well as hundreds more that came later, in the Roman Colosseum — Jesus himself says “You will be persecuted.” So it’s not something you do lightly, or for safety reasons.

Yes, I know this and this is where I say that “beliefs can cause harm”. In this case to one’s self. Here is where faith conflicts with instinct and reason. Instinctively and by sound reasoning about what I know of the world says protect myself, protect my family at all costs. I don’t want to be a martyred for my faith. I don’t think it is somehow noble. Will I defend myself in everyway possible, even denouncing my faith - yes instinctively. I guess I never bought into having a guardian angel or a God who would protect me or reward me for standing up for him. An all powerful being shouldn’t need my help.

[Joao]

@Patrick

Because Christians aren’t in the habit of killing people of other religions or people of no religion.

Are you familiar with the Crusades? The Salem witch trials? Bombing of US abortion clinics?

Wasn’t the Iraq War mostly Christians killing people of other religions? How many have been killed there since 2003?

Human beings are very much in the habit of killing people of other religions.

[Joao]

[quote=“Patrick, post:166, topic:2555”]
Eddie and I disagrees on how much we already know about the origins of life on Earth, Solar System and the rest of the universe.[/quote]
Let’s not forget that Eddie claims that those actually working in the field agree with him and disagree with you, when in reality the opposite is true.

We both agree that we don’t know enough.

I don’t think Eddie agrees.

[quote]Both of us are not experts in this field but we both read the latest results and theories on the subject.
[/quote]Definitely not true in Eddie’s case.

[Joao]

@Patrick

I guess I never bought into having a guardian angel or a God who would protect me or reward me for standing up for him. An all powerful being shouldn’t need my help.

This.

And an all-powerful being does not need me to avoid new knowledge or to misrepresent new knowledge to create fictional gaps into which I stuff Him, thereby diminishing Him.

[psst…Brad, see how I brought that back around to the concept of the title and OP?]

[quote=“Christy from the OP, post:1, topic:2555”]
I can’t imagine how verifying that there are currently unidentified mechanisms at work in addition to natural selection would change my theology.
[/quote]Me neither, but here we have an perfect case study: Eddie’s theology clearly is gravely threatened by the simple concept that evolution only happens to populations, never to individuals. He relentlessly misrepresents this (a single animal changing into another, the very first cell, the first life which for some never-specified reason must have been cellular, etc.) to create larger gaps into which he can stuff God.

This weak theology is the meat of the ID movement.

[Mazrocon]

@Patrick

You’re in essence, saying that dying for what you believe in is harmful. But you just stated that you would protect your family at all costs. I’m assuming then that you believe in your family? And if you believe in your family would you not protect them, even if that meant getting in harm’s way?

You wrote, “Will I defend myself in every possible way, even denouncing my faith - yes instinctively”

If you were to denounce your faith to protect yourself then that faith obviously didn’t mean much to you. To the Christian, denouncing their faith to protect themselves would be fruitless… because that faith gave their life meaning and purpose. In the same sense you wouldn’t “throw your family under the bus” to save yourself, because family means something to you, even though you are intentionally putting yourself in harm’s way.

In a counter argument I would further ask who is doing more harm? The person who is killing the Christian simply because he is a Christian? Or the Christian who refuses to give up what gives his life meaning, in order that he may live a (now) meaningless life?

The way that you describe “dying for what you believe in” as being harmful, is misguided.

Scripture says, “There be no greater love than this, that a man give up his life for his friends.” — if you are willing to die for your family, then I suggest that you possess this “greater love”…

-Tim

[Joao]

[quote=“GJDS, post:141, topic:2555, full:true”]
On the unlikely chance that you can focus on the point of this exchange with Patrick, it was to show a difference between speculative research and that which provides a breakthrough on the origins of life - and it relates to the source provided by Patrick.[/quote]
We’re discussing your understanding of the research (not the source provided by Patrick). You claimed that you “cannot keep a straight face,” remember?

I do not know why you insert yourself in this way, but perhaps if you take a deep breath and pause, you may realise that I have suggested further reading by workers in this field, who, in various ways, seem to agree that this area is speculative.

You recommended old book chapters, not new research–why? And where is the dichotomy between “speculative” and “not provided any breakthroughs”?

For example, how do you explain the fact that the ribosome is a ribozyme if RNA didn’t come before protein?

I also add a quote from Patrick’s source to illustrate the speculative nature of this area:

I’m not talking about Patrick’s source. Let’s discuss the paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7484

Did you read the paper?

So, as the saying goes, show me your output, or show some civility by stopping your pointless comments.

I don’t see how asking if you read the paper suggests a lack of civility.

On matters such as polarity of molecules such as amino-acids, and the behaviour of hydrophilic molecules in water or water/oil mixtures, this area is well understood by chemists, so relax, there is no debate.

It looks like you didn’t read the paper.

Workers have all understood however, that optically pure amino acids cannot be produced under the conditions envisaged by experiments such as the ones Patrick refers to.

Nothing in the actual paper I linked to has to do with producing optically pure amino acids. Did you read it?

[quote] Again, if you know better, say so - if not, do not say anything
[/quote]Did you read either of the PNAS papers before judging and deriding the work based on a press release?

[Gregory]

Joao, no offense to the particular field of biological science that you study and how important you consider it for this conversation, but could you please try to steer back to the proper theme of this thread, to the OP, which was named “Evolution and God’s Sovereignty (and the BioLogos view)”?

How in your view is God involved in the evolutionary process? Or, as another poster asked, how does “God ‘control’ the results of evolution”? This is a ‘science and faith’ discussion forum, not just a place for discussing PNAS papers, after all. We get it that you know more evolutionary biology than most of us. Could you take a step or two beyond that into a more actively collaborative science, philosophy and theology/worldview conversation, which Christy did well to initiate in the OP? If you’re not a theist, then just try to imagine possible answers to those questions.

[Patrick]

What I am saying is that we all have innate instincts. They are genetically there. A mother will instinctive reach to protect her child. And this is not just humans who do this, many animal species do this. So we all have this innate instinct, ala the “selfish gene” concept. Would you save yourself -yes, would you save your child - most certainly the strongest response. We would even risk our lives to save our dogs, but fast choices happen. Youngest child saved first instinctively.

On top of that we have reason. Both individual reason and collective societal reason. Instinctive reaction is usually the wrong way to go. It takes reason for the mother to let the firefighter save her child instead of trying to do it herself. Reasoning is constantly growing. We have nuclear weapons, be no one is saying nuke ISIS. We reasoned our way from that.

In my opinion, faith (of any kind) clouds reason. It adds an unnecessary layer in the human mind and the collective reasoning of society. Take little things -should I vaccinate my child? Instinctive - protect so yes, reasoning, I did the research, I know the risks, it is a tradeoff but the evidence is overwhelming yes vaccinate. Adding a faith dimension clouds the reasoning. It may come to the same conclusion, but it interferes and clouding the reasoning. It is unnecessary.

I firmly believe that you would be a good moral person living your life with purpose and meaning if you had any Christian faith or any other faith or no faith at all.

[Patrick]

All true. But , in this country we don’t (or shouldn’t treat) paint groups with a broad brush. In the country, 70% says they are Christians. But it is not homogeneous. There are over 44,000 different denominations of Christianity in the country. Beliefs and strength of briefs vary widely. The spectrum of what constitute a Christian is as broad as asking what it means to be an American. So I think it would be useful to think of us all as people and let reason figure out how to live.

[Patrick]

Joao,
You seem to be much more knowledgeable than I am on the contains of that paper I posted. Please give me your option of it. Do you think it was a significant result? Or just a little piece of the puzzle? For someone not at the cutting edge of research, every paper seems like it is either the next Nobel prize or destined for the okay that’s interesting category.

[beaglelady]

I recently asked BioLogos to do a blog post about the latest in OOL research.

[Mazrocon]

@Patrick

You wrote, “I firmly believe that you would be a good moral person living your life with purpose and meaning if you had any Christian faith or another other faith or no faith at all.”

Jesus says the same thing, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans [tax collectors] the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?” and in other passages: “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”

… a common misconception is that Christianity is all about morals and ethics, but it’s not. Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his day that believed that to be the case. A religious father will give good gifts to his son just as much as a non-religious father will give good gifts to his son.

It isn’t so much about morals as it is about outlook. Seeing the bigger picture, and saying “What’s it all for?”. Of course an atheist (or Buddhists, Hindu, Muslim etc.) can live a good and moral life. But as far as “meaning and purpose” that’s open to discussion. To the Christian, people are eternal, so what you do in this life matters. It sounds to me, that under you worldview, meaning and purpose aren’t that big of words, and are subjective, molded, to the individual person. If your meaning in life is to kill as many as possible then great… who am I accuse you? If your meaning in life is to help as many people as possible then that’s also great… who am I too say different?

You wrote, “In my opinion faith (of any kind) clouds reason. It adds an unnecessary layer in the human mind and the collective reasoning of society.”

Might I ask why it is that the majority of the world have a faith, or some form of religious tendencies? Are they all just irrational?

You spoke of three things: human instinct, individual reasoning, and societal reasoning. I’m not sure which, in your opinion, is to be governing? If a society is largely religious, you might incorporate your individual reasoning, to denounce those of the society… so individual trumps society. Or perhaps your human instincts tell you “I should protect my child” but society tells say no, and takes your child away from you… so society trumps human instinct. Or perhaps an individual has a scheme and wants to change society to fit his particular needs, and that society becomes corrupt. Let’s say that society was Nazi Germany. So other societies… such as America, and Britain… ban together and attack and denounce the practices of the corrupt society. But who gets to say what is corrupt and not-corrupt? Or who gets to says what’s right and what’s wrong? Human instincts? Individual reasoning? Societal reasoning? All these concepts seem, to me, just floating around in open air, standing on nothing.

When you wrote, “Beliefs can cause harm”, you’re putting your own sets of beliefs in a completely different category. You are not giving your broad statements context. If someone were to say, “a person was martyred because of his faith”, no one would have any idea what to the make of the situation until they knew two important factors:

1. What is the substance of the faith? What does the faith entail?

2. Why was the persecutor killing the religious for his faith?

If A, My faith was in the worship of bologna sandwiches, and B, the persecutor told the person of faith, “I will kill you AND your family, unless you denounce your faith”… then you might have a case for either A, irrational behavior and/or B, a faith that is causing serious harm.

But until you know the context of the situation, then then there is no weight. And when there’s no weight, there’s no argument.

-Tim

[Patrick]

@TimothyHicks

Jesus says the same thing, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans [tax collectors] the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?” and in other passages: “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”

What’s with the ye and maketh? Here in New Jersey we say “you guys” and “what are you gonna do about it” Can you use modern American English for your quotes. It makes it easier to read. It not like old English is the original.

@TimothyHicks

You wrote, “In my opinion faith (of any kind) clouds reason. It adds an unnecessary layer in the human mind and the collective reasoning of society.”

Might I ask why it is that the majority of the world have a faith, or some form of religious tendencies? Are they all just irrational?

Your correct, the majority of the world have different faiths? And it groups into regions of the world. Each started as local beliefs and merge/converges, take overs so that just five major faiths cover the world with tens of thousands of smaller factions within each of them. Pretty much followed similar migratory patterns as the flow of languages and human migration throughout the world.
Are they irrational? No, each tribe or group refined their religion to the needs and times of the group. As nation/state grew religion grow and clashed within and outside of the groupings.

@TimothyHicks

You spoke of three things: human instinct, individual reasoning, and societal reasoning. I’m not sure which, in your opinion, is to be governing?

That is simple: individual reasoning

@TimothyHicks

1. What is the substance of the faith? What does the faith entail? In my opinion, faith entails one to pretend to know something that you just don’t know (or can’t know) is true.

2. Why was the persecutor killing the religious for his faith? Don’t understand the question.

[aleo (Albert Leo)]

@Gregory

This is a ‘science and faith’ discussion forum, not just a place for discussing PNAS papers,

I agree. I’ve spent the greater part of my scientific career studying the biological effects of hydrophobicity, and I could have advised the authors of the PNAS paper that octanol would have been a better choice than cyclohexane as the lipid phase. But so what? What does that have to do with how I view life’s purpose?

Stan Miller and I began our graduate research at the U. of Chicago at the same time, and he picked Harold Urey as his mentor. They both were surprised at how their research captured the imagination of the scientific world. But they never thought that it could ever prove how life on earth began. At best it could support one possible scenario. We Christians, it appears, must be satisfied that God’s role in that process may never be clearly defined. As Einstein said: “The Lord God is subtle…”
Al Leo

[Gregory]

“Now, if we could just bring back the Latin Mass, too, we’d be firing on all cylinders.” - Eddie

You sound here like a Roman Catholic, given the linguistic and ecclesiastic history. It didn’t seem, however, that you actually were one, are you, Eddie? Generally, it still sounds to me like Patrick (and surely Al Leo) is more Catholic than you are. ‘Mass’ is not typically an evangelical Protestant term suitable for using the pronoun ‘we’.

New Jersey English, Boston English and ‘Hispanic/Latino’ English all still sound like English to me.

You did realise there was a Pontifical Academy of Sciences, right, Patrick, and that the Catholic Church is not anti-science? http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia.html