[quote=“Chris_Falter, post:82, topic:35680”] [quoting George quoting somebody else …]
[evolution] is … “ordained” by God, or “it shows how God uses chance”,
Actually Chris, @Jon_Garvey has hammered enough on this point (which I’ve settled into myself I think) that I agree ‘chance’ is not a tool so much as a human perspective. Or perhaps a “human retrospective” would have even more clarity. But I totally agree that God does use and is sovereign over all processes – and always has been according to orthodox Judeo-Christian teachings through history (contra to what I understand – or perhaps misunderstand @GJDS to be saying). He can dispute whether or not evolution is actually how Adam or any humans were created – which is a discussion then involving science. But once a Christian accepts that evolutionary processes actually are among the “facts on the ground”, it becomes incoherent to think that these are somehow uniquely excluded from God’s providential concern. I’m guessing that GJDS actually disputes the whole premise of that sentence (the so-called “facts on the ground”) but then is conflating that in with a theological objection. But I am here to be corrected as necessary.
Does that help? Well, no. I’m perfectly in tune with the qualifications you are offering in your last post. But what I don’t have a read on is which preference is closest to yours?:
Does God take a “hands off” stance regarding the Creation of Life and its subsequent Evolution … waiting for nature to produce whatever it produces?
Or Does God plan all of it, at creation, with virtually no need for any miraculous interventions (< This is actually closest to my position)?
Or Does God know the limits of natural law, and so he helps the Creation of Life and Evolution along with the occasional miraculous “hand up” - - like the ID view on flagella? (< I allow for this as a possible scenario, but don’t think Science can prove this).
So… in this posting, we’ve covered a full range:
God “relies genuine randomness, knowing eventually it will get him to where he wants Creation to be” (Option 1);
God “uses no randomness and precisely arranges Creation and Natural law to arrive where he wants Creation to be” (Option 2); and
God "uses no randomness and makes miracles here and there to arrive where he wants Creation to be (Option 3).
But let me add a 4th Option, just in case you or others are so inclined:
God "allows genuine randomness, but makes the occasional miracle to arrive where he wants Creation to be (Option 4).
To summarize the scope of these options:
They address “genuine randomness” vs. “natural lawfulness”;
They address “natural lawfulness” vs. “miraculous deeds”; and
They address a precise time table vs. God allowing for a more “open” system.
For the sake of Full Disclosure, my personal stance (which I also think is consistent with the BioLogos mission statements), is Option 3, with an acknowledged built-in flexibility, where the amount of miraculous deeds by God could range from ONE (the Big Bang), to MILLIONS (to keep all those galaxies heading in the right direction).
As before, Chris, if the statement that best suits you needs some editing, please feel free.
I’ll go with Option 4, George. And I go there because of how I see the data, not AFAICT because of any particular theological bent.
But I’m not sure why you offer Option 3 which only differs from 4 on whether randomness is allowed, and I think everyone (even perhaps YECs with variation after the ark) would accept randomness and variation and geographic speciation. It’s just that Evolution looks to me from the data like a generally weak and slow process, and it needed help to handle some hurdles. Origins of Life is, of course, before Evolution, but it looks to me absurd to suggest life started on its own.
The discussion commences with a specific event that is grounded in Biblical authority - Adam and original sin. The bulk of my comment deals with this and how we can comprehend it as “what God has done” and how this has been revealed to us. If we decide to modify this into a so called fact of evolution, it becomes incoherent - and ToE cannot provide anything except weird assumptions on the matter.
The counters that I have noticed on this site are mundane generalities that shift the narrative and in this way try to wiggle out of biblical teachings. When this error is generalised into stuff like evolution has been ordained by God, the implication is that the bible is not ordained by God, because evolution provides facts and truths that contradict the bible.
I cannot fathom why intelligent people cannot see the fallacy in this outlook. Evolution cannot tell us what God has done regarding Adam, nor personhood, nor original sin - yet this nonsense continues. If anyone or @Chris_Falter has credible scientific data that somehow in the recent past humanity came to know God directly, and genetic analysis identifies this person/persons and acts, we can at least have something to discuss. No-one has, and thus the argument is either an exercise in futility, or an attempt at foisting an ideology on Christian theology.
For better or worse, we continue to be worlds apart presuppositionally, I think, perhaps keeping me from fully understanding you. But despite that we have Christ in common. I pray for blessings on you and your endeavors, and will continue to take interest in your contributions that my own understanding may grow.
Thank you for you kind wishes Mervin, and I hope they return 10 fold to you and yours.
Our differences that I see from my perspective are not so much on Christian teachings, but a very great difference in the weight we place on ToE (in my case the very little weight when it comes to its impact on theological matters)… But we agree on this - evolution or otherwise, Christ is King and He settles all differences.
Hi Chris: I think it was Einstein who said something to the effect that if you cannot describe what you know to a 10 year old, then chances you don’t understand it yourself. The stats stuff you bring up so obliterate sense in such a plain common sense matter that I am wondering if you are truly on board with understanding the worldview you espouse.
You are talking about two different types of science…one present day problem solving type and the other historical science. This analysis you are talking about perhaps good for the present day methodological science version but stats on how complex life appeared via the natural which 100% depends upon absolutely no interaction from an intelligent source in the process of development of this complex complex complex life??? You surely cannot believe this and if you don’t, then stats are irrelevant.
And if God interacts to form life as we know it even in consideration that perhaps God indeed did create kinds with the ability to adapt, the practical nature of our scientific observations for solving real time issues becomes even more vibrant and sharp because we did not waste any time trying to prove the unprovable naturalistic worldview which defies all logic. And again, suggesting that this is the case and that we can attribute this to God is to say that God is responsible for taking credit for what is absolutely illogical, insensible and so nearly impossible that we may as well call it what it is: impossible.
A page in a magazine did not involve its creator providing the paper, ink and maybe even a copy machine, but it involved an intelligent being writing the script for others made in similar image of that intelligent being to read and understand. Naturalism is a flawed worldview. It is not of God, not of the Bible, not worthy of statistical analysis and if an unbelieving scientist had any other options beside this and the idea that that God created kinds which is offensive to a sinners flesh, he’d go to that one…but there are no others!
As far as cabinet making vs science and faith etc. I have no idea what you are getting at! My Christian faith sprouted from a Christian text that was told to me 30 plus years ago and which I have continued to study for 30 years. I did not gain faith from my gaining knowledge from all of those science and business classes at Miami U and I did not gain faith from gaining knowledge in my current occupation either. I gained it from hearing from God through His Word which came to me through some of His servants. I am a skeptic and I took what these folks told me and studied…then prayed…then was one day transformed in a way that caused my viewpoints in life to become less self centeredand more other’s centered. Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God. If you practice a faith that depends upon observations of the universe for salvation or carpentry, this is not true salvation according to the bible. Read Colossians sometime on this topic.
To my God all things are possible if they do not conflict with his nature. Why do you have such a puny, powerless, and limited God? The “illogical, insensible and so nearly impossible” comes from your own limited knowledge. Why do you do you think it would apply to Him?
@grog, basically the whole point that everyone’s trying to make to you is, make sure your facts are straight. That’s the first thing you need to do in any discussion of creation and evolution. If you can’t get your facts right, there’s no point in even trying to discuss their interpretation or their spiritual significance.
Einstein never said that. Even the concept is true, if the 10 year old refuses to listen, then what is the scientist supposed to do? The concepts of evolution have been explained to you, but you have not been listening. As I previously stated:
Are you familiar with Tversky and Kahneman’s work? You make a lot of statements about statistics and probability, so I would hope that you’re familiar with their heuristics of insensitivity to sample size, the illusion of validity, and so forth. These heuristics can badly mislead the untrained. I suspect that these misunderstandings are the basis of your statements about what’s impossible and unlikely, but I can’t be sure because you have never formulated the math.
The scientific community does not accept this distinction. Perhaps you do not understand this because you have taken no notice of the examples I provided. Since you evidently didn’t read them the first time, let me repeat them for you:
And here’s another example:
an epidemiologist studies genetic samples of viruses taken in specific places and times in order to discover the transmission vectors of influenza variants.
These are all examples of how inferring what happened in the past is an important aspect of science. So when biology studies the origin of species, it is legitimately science.
If you still disagree with me, then do me a favor: show how each of the individual examples I provided (including the cabinet maker and the epidemiologist) is not, in fact, part of the scientific domain.
How many times has the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism been explained to you, Greg, and you still do not understand?
Methodological naturalism is practiced every day by cabinet makers. It is practiced by weather forecasters. It is practiced by truck drivers. How you could miss that point after I and others have so clearly expressed it so many times is completely beyond me.
I agree with this.
Why do you feel the need to mention this, Greg, when I have explained to you several times that my faith is based on the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and upon my reliance on His teachings? You seem to be implying that my faith is not legitimate just because I speak of physics and carpentry.
…does not even begin to answer my question. Since you seem to have lost the context, I will go back to the first time I asked it to refresh your memory: