Evolutionary Creationism and Materialist Evolution

Davies inhabits the no-man’s-land between Einstein’s pantheistic metaphoric God - i.e. Einstein was an atheist - and, as per his Mind of God, some weird form of deism for which Templeton awarded him a silly amount of money for saying something nice about religion. He is well known for speaking outside his very narrow bailiwick with no authority whatsoever on arsenic based DNA bacteria and the colonization of Mars. Science is littered with geniuses who lost the plot if they ever had it. Hoyle (his Cambridge postdoctoral mentor), Margulis, etc, etc.

The cleverest human being I will ever meet, with the possible exception of Polkinghorne, lived on a very broken boat. I used to buy him lunch. He solved a bottleneck on the genome project and there was talk of an honourable mention in a Nobel. He has no body of work because he can’t. Think A Beautiful Mind. Not that far gone, but although he sees patterns that nobody else can see that are there, he also sees them when they aren’t. He really is probably smarter than Sir John. Who couldn’t imagine the multiverse in the mind of God either. God is fair.

Penrose inhabits the same kind of universe, “I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it’s not somehow just there by chance … some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along—it’s a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.”

Ah, reading up, THERE’S the list.

David Gross - Jewish theist
Paul Steinhardt - cyclic universe
Anna Ijjas - cyclic universe
Abraham Loeb - Aliens… “Noah’s Spaceship”
David Spergel - Steinhardt buddy
Neil Turok - cyclic universe, Steinhardt buddy
Viatcheslav Mukhanov
Michael S. Turner
Roger Penrose - mystic
George Ellis - Quaker
Joe Silk - infinite cosmos
Carlo Rovelli - no time
Adam Frank - Buddhist?
Marcelo Gleiser - winner of the Templeton Prize
Jim Baggott - empiricist
Paul Davies - pantheist-deist

Just keep staring eternity in the face guys.

I bet you NONE of these guys believes in an idiosyncratic finite universe.

And truth is democratic. Give us the Latin name of that kind of fallacious argument, @Klax.
 

You apparently did not catch that does not mean that it precludes a multiverse.

I don’t much dispute your analysis here, that is largely my point and what largely happens. Where I might differ is that some people who study the ancient texts can also adapt their understanding to the world around them. the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) obviously just torture what little “science” they employ to get to the result they already want to believe, but many people at ASA, for example, are more likely to be evolutionary creationists who allow most of the science to inform their understanding of the bible.

Obviously, in the case of real science, such as efforts at protein folding, people who employ a top down approach adapt their strategy as new information or new challenges emerge. Yet, in a sense, top-down is effectively “someone claiming to have knowledge and authority about something”. I would say that science approaches are more informed and adaptable, they are based on generalizing observations, but it doesn’t diminish the fact that it is based on “knowledge and authority” which could in fact be wrong, or misguided, or distorted. The person claiming to understand or interpret an ancient text is also working from an informed knowledge and authority. … and it is not so far from the truth that we find scientists who try to coerce their particular “idea” into the science, even if it is wrong. That is at least partly why something like half of the published biological experiments are difficult or even impossible to reproduce. Some scientists die with their crazy ideas: the positron lattice, whatever, maybe it’s possible for a fleeting nanosecond. That was the guy’s own “religion”, but anyway, I’ve seen enough scientists take up ideas like a religion in the worlds I’ve been in. Granted, the worst are the ones who use the big black book to coerce science rather than leave it alone.

Yet you would probably agree that a strategy that solves the same problems almost perfectly with five fundamental parameters is probably more accurately describing the truth than one that used 10,000 with lots of “rules” you must follow for all sorts of intricate cases. Particle physics may be a bit of an exception, yet there does seem to be a logic to it, even though it is complicated.

Indeed, he was wrong. Yet the underlying assumption was that everything could be explained by some fundamental forces, so it should be the case with QM. You could integrate to combine all pathways, but everything could be predicted from fundamentals. That didn’t happen with QM. The Copenhagen Interpretation is a kind of authoritative knowledge claim. Physicists these days usually accept it, but there is an ingrained tendency to want to kick at it.

No argument there.

by Grace we proceed.

Personally, I don’t have much liking for the multiverse idea; however, if ever there were a way somehow to prove that they exist, I would not view it as demolishing my faith. I recall Victor Stenger was one who tried to claim that we could get rid of God by having the parameters in the multiverses “evolve”. He was rather driven to find a cheap way to dispense with God. I guess the assumption was that if you can claim that you don’t need God to have a universe, then you can get rid of God. I also found it nihilistic. Yet even if all that were true on the “physics”, that has nothing to do with walking in faith and trying to do what is right.

He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6;8)

I certainly don’t see the existence of a multiverse changing my faith. The way that God creates is God’s business. We should just find a way to adapt and appreciate it, if anything, but it changes nothing about our walk with Jesus. Who am I to darken the heavenly council by saying “hey, what are you doing?”. … [Well, I do often complain at God about how the world is (like Job), but I don’t care how God made the world.] I think the problem is that some people seem to think that we have to submit to their interpretation to be part of the club. … even if it grates at everything that makes sense.

With aliens, well, I don’t know what to think, but if we find this to be the case, what I would be particularly interested in is whether the intelligent life is similar to us (something like those Star Trek sort of episodes), or quite different. I think if they are very similar, it means that life appears something like a kind of epiphenomenon. Life probably naturally forms in that case. If they are quite different, I don’t quite know what to think, but that is something I find interesting and am curious about. Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean we should reject Micah 6:8, indeed, maybe it means that we need Jesus’ teachings all the more. We’re hardly in abundant supply of charity, empathy, and love that leads to common respect.

by Grace we proceed,

1 Like

No.

Accuracy is only a matter of agreement with observation and the number of rules and parameters in the calculation has nothing to do with it. In the case of physics this agreement with observation is on pretty solid ground with experimental measurements. But for most things in life, our beliefs shape our perceptions and thus people easily convince themselves that their overly simplistic models are accurately describing reality when they are not doing anything of the kind.

Sorry. I am pretty stubborn in my refutation of Occam’s razor. I really think it is total nonsense. But taking your example more seriously I would say it is more a matter of sanity than accuracy. We are unlikely to do things in a so much more difficult way without very good reasons.

When two methods really give the same results, then in physics we generally keep both methods because we find that different methods tend to work better for different problems. The source example of Occam’s razor, the Geocentric versus Heliocentric description of planetary motion was really a mixture of these two cases. The Heliocentric giving more accurate calculations with fewer corrections, and the Geocentric more directly describing the motion of the planets in the sky of earth. Ultimately they are just two different frames of reference, one being considerably more inertial than the other.

I can think of an abstract example which might clarify things further. Suppose we calculate an observable with a poorly convergent polynomial series (the many 10,000 terms being a product of matching the measurements). Then we find a good approximation (but with less accuracy) from only a few parameters. What would I make of this? The polynomial series is just mathematically reproducing the result without really explaining anything, while the one with fewer parameters is revealing principles involved even if other factors (e.g. chaotic elements) are preventing them from giving a better accuracy. So perhaps the phrase needed for our preference for fewer parameters/rules is “more explanatory” rather than “more accurate.”

2 Likes

Fair enough. For most things in life, the solutions are not simple. … and it is true that we have a tendency to rush to Occam’s razor when we confront the difficult things in life. It is only after many “school of hard knocks” lessons that we develop an attitude more akin to what Jesus tells us to hold.

On physical models …
I have to admit that I always found that amusing that we handle satellites with basically a geocentric perspective. Of course, we understand the general model, so we can always transform to a different frame of reference when we have to. Also, if I have two or more independent ways to get an answer and I really want to be sure, I might choose to use them all. It is usually good to understand both models and know their limitations.

Rationally, homogenously, without a trace in the natural, from eternity. In the transcendent it’ll be obvious.

1 Like

Does anyone else think that the non-sequitur that truth is not consensual - which of course it is; collectively as well as individually subjective - follows from the fact that no scientist or philosopher rationally proposes an idiosyncratic finite universe? Even if they are not disinterested having a vested interest in defending two stroke or infinite eternal universes. The former really is unreal and I can’t see its living original proponents still defending it. A single infinite oscillating universe is still idiosyncratic, there again so is a single infinite universe, the perception of idiosyncrasy being distracted by infinity. The problem with an infinite universe is do the bubbles ever touch? Or do universes disintegrate after 10^100 years? Or just fade away as time becomes meaningless? What of space? Whereas with a multiverse, they can expand all they like, why would they ever touch? I s’pose an infinite meta-universe can expand faster than its island universes. Either way, eternity and infinity its corollary are the ultimate facts of existence. The alternative is completely PUY1 :nazar_amulet:011110 :bathtub:111110111 :camel:111F$£Dkjkqf g!3.14159hatstand

PS I do not want to argue God away. I do not want to make up absurd stories that no matter how improbable are preferable because they don’t need God. I’d rather cling to my ignorance in the dark, I miss my God in all His evolution. But someone turned the light on and my dream state ended. The light of eternity that no one dare stare in to. Even I look away, call on God, try to find a way of communicating with His absent presence.

Who can I be just to today?

WOW - This thread has certainly been informative.

1 Like

Friend,

I don’t think anyone has answered this question yet, so I’m going to go ahead and do so.

I would say that, generally speaking, an EC would not say that God’s design is scientifically detectable. I cannot speak for all ECs.

Hope this helps! :slight_smile:

2 Likes

@Klax, I question whether that statement if true or not, but it is true that there was no clear evidence that the universe is finite until about 100 years ago with the Big Bang. One hundred years is not a long time to change the patterns of human thinking.

Even though most scientists accept the fact that the universe had an absolute Beginning, many still resist and try to find a way around the Beginning. Philosophy appears to have been static for a long time, so it has not changed except most people are not aware of how it works. They are philosophically illiterate. The reason why people, including yourself, have not made this transition is that they are too invested in the old to accept the new.

You oppose the current Western dualistic model, which I agree has many flaws with the single infinite oscillating universe which seems to me to have even more flaws. What you fail to consider is the Complex/One universe/reality, which is neither monistic or dualistic, but based on The One And the Many.

Your solution is not radical or idiosyncratic enough.

Perry, I like Christy’s response. As for the assertion that “one cannot empirically prove…whether or not a supernatural power was involved in speciation, molecular evolution, etc” — maybe not. But some aspects of that – along with other things — have made some skeptics incredibly nervous.

Which, who? And what other things? My doubt is not born of the lack of empirical proof which doesn’t make ID 50:50, but puts it in the realm of foolishness; pick a number of zeros after 1 for the sigmas, it’s born of the complete credibility of materialism and the incredibility of Jesus.

not sure about your “which,who?” …but also do not understand what you mean by “the complete credibility of materialism and the incredibility of Jesus.” You seem to have made an evolutionary leap (or maybe not evolutionary) from the question of existence of a deity to the matter of Jesus andalso made a determination along the way. Quite a lengthy journey in a short space! I believe a hotel chain has left the light on somewhere…

‘some skeptics’ (sic) ‘Which, who?’

Materialism, physicalism lacks nothing in explanatory power that God provides. And that doesn’t make them equal, doesn’t play to a draw. It’s not fifty-fifty. The former is infinitely simpler for no loss, except transcendent meaning.

Nonetheless I desire God because of Jesus. He is the only possible justification. And the claim of Him is outrageous, incredible. Which adds to His credibility.

1 Like

I do like the line “I desire God because of Jesus.” That is reason enough, actually! …though, of course, others require other things. Thanks for the update!

1 Like

How could anyone possibly claim the universe is ‘without meaning’ or purpose? Poppycock! Did they create it?!

You make an excellent point. God is not only the Father Who created the universe, God is also the Son, Who saves us from sin and death, and the Spirit of Love, Who enables us to live the life of love. Atheists look at God and life as having only one dimension, which is very wrong. The Trinity is an excellent argument for God, which we often overlook.

That is called the faith of an atheist. It is allowing one’s ideology drive one’s understanding of science. It is wrong with Creationism and it is perhaps more wrong with the multiverse, because it is less obvious.

The issue is the integrity of God and the integrity of science, which makes it very important. God acts in a transparent manner. We can see through the evidence of the Big Bang how God created the universe. The multiverse is pure speculation without solid evidence.

We must hold the line that science must be based on solid evidence, not solely on speculation and not even on mathematics only. It is not good to have scientists and non-scientists going around claiming scientific facts, which are not scientific facts.

Science is more than math. I see a trend toward science becoming based solely on math which would be a serious mistake. Math is an important tool of science, but it cannot the whole of science.

Actually there is a serious error that has been introduced science by Darwin that is causing considerable confusion in the minds of many because no one has straightened it out. This is the problem of natural selection as survival of the fittest. It is not a scientifically verified, so it is a lie, yet it is part of the basis of our understanding of evolution. Our understanding of science and reality cannot be made whole until we correct this most serious problem. Truth is not built on lies, even unintentional lies. That is why our task must be to be seekers of truth, regardless of where it leads us

1 Like

An idiosyncratic universe would be most absurdly meaningful indeed, but of course there have always been universes from eternity, grounded by God or no.

John 1:1-3 (NIV2011)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

@Joshua_Wagner, I would say that you are correct. is not scientifically detectable apart from “natural” design.

I would just add this understanding. God’s design can not be detected apart from natural design because God’s design IS natural design. After all Who created Nature/the universe? Who created evolution? Surely it wasn’t Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins.

Western dualism has separated God and Nature as if they were inherently different. True, they are not the same. Creator and Creation are not the same, but how they be radically different. Both are good, both are rational. God created or designed evolution to create us and our biosphere.

John 1 say that God the Father created or designed “everything” through the Son, the Logos, the Rational Word of God. There is no separate “natural” design and God’s design, just “design” which originated with God the Logos.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.