Evolutionary Creationist views of how life originated and evolved

Faith & Science Conversation
41

Patrick, there would always be a true reason, rather than a statistical one, for such an outlier: we rather blind ourselves by taking the statistical maths as a cause, rather than an abstraction from events.

Example: one could statistically analyse whether Patrick or Jon will stay at home, go to a nearby resort, travel to various countries etc, based on what a cohort of equivalent people do for their vacations. A trip to Mars would be statistically vanishingly unlikely - but if in fact that’s where we meet up this summer, it will have zilch to do with probabilities, and everything to do with being abducted by aliens, transported by angels or some other true cause.

Likewise, if the coin you toss ends up resting on its edge, the cause is not a “probability” but the unusual way you threw it. “How unlikely is that?” is only a question because you don’t have full information about, or exact control of, how you threw it. If you did, it would be edge on every time. Naturally.

42

I think we agree.

So why did a quantum fluctuation occur creating a universe where there was no universe before?

43

I didn’t do the calculations and graph, Normal Probability Calculator Online - MathCracker.com did.

1 Like
44

Hi Jon,

My only argument with you was over your attempt to move evolution theory outside the boundaries of natural science when you stated:

I made no statements regarding true causation vs. probabilistic analysis, unknown vs. truly unknowable to man vs. truly unknowable to anyone including God, etc. You evidently find those themes to be intriguing, so you have delivered to us a quite cogent essay on them. Thank you! However, they do not really pertain to the point I was trying to make. I tried to make my argument clear, but I must have failed. I hope this little post clarifies my intent.

Again, I am only disputing the attempt to define “nature” in such a way as to exclude evolution, or “predictable”/“orderly” in such a way as to exclude evolutionary theory from the domain of science.

Have a great day, Jon!

45

That would be the “angels” side of the explanation…

46

Hi Patrick,

Was your Ph.D. in Computer Science? Just wanting to get to know you a little better…

Chris

47

no, it is in electrical engineering. Here is my linkedin profile if your want to know everything professionally about me
https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-trischitta-1453194?trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile

48

Hi Chris

Maybe you misunderstood my point too. “That” in my sentence referred to the definition of “natural” as predictable and orderly, not to evolution being within or outside natural science. Being statistically predictable wouldn’t, in my view, necessarily fit that particular definition of “natural”, because statistical analysis can equally be applied to human choices (and presumably equally to divine choices), as with Patrick and my summer holiday plans, Martian exploits excluded.

My interest in this case is that, without a clear definition of “natural”, it makes little sense to insist that evolution (or any other process) occurs by “natural causes”, even as a faith statement, let alone a scientific claim. What does such a statement mean?

Patrick’s “statistically improbable quantum fluctuation”, were we to concede the universe began that way, would only be a statement either of ignorance of why it happened, or a fancy and obfuscating way of saying that God created the universe, one of whose first manifestations was a quantum fluctuation beyond the natural (in the sense of commonly observed or repeatable or lawlike). Chance would not explain anything.

But those two possibilities equally apply to any “chance” event. In a common case, like a coin toss, our ignorance may only cover the imprecision of our tossing, or may also, or instead, reflect a specific decision of God. Our reasonable working assumption of the former ignores the verse in Proverbs that when “a man casts the lot, its every decision is from the Lord.” Where that sits in relation to “natural causes” is obscure, because the distinction is meaningless: to the extent that we do not know the actual causes, the coin toss is outside natural science (which is about knowledge, scientia, not ignorance).

The case is the same if we talk about events that have “probabilities” somewhere between the common coin toss and a unique quantum fluctuation making the universe, such as mutations in evolution. Our probability distribution tells us only what we do not know - including any attribution to “natural” causes as opposed to any other kind… especially when we haven’t been able to define “natural” anyway!

49

He reveals his hand? Haha. Probably because billions of years is obvious to everyone. I was going to compose a reply, but I made the mistake of looking out my window and gazing upon a mountain that is the product of geologic uplift, and I realized that you and I just think differently. I could not believe the things that you believe even if I tried. So, rather than work on another rebuttal to a rebuttal to a rebuttal, I’m going to use my limited time to reply to something I found more interesting. No offense.

1 Like
50

As a young Christian I was used to that tradition of assuming that thorny plants and weeds did not yet exist. But once I was immersed in the Hebrew Bible, I realized that there was no Biblical reason to assume some unmentioned “second creation” where God made thorns, weeds, and carnivorous animals (or, at least, the new digestive systems carnivores needed in order to deal with their food.)

The garden account in Genesis 2:5ff is neither a retelling of Genesis 1 nor a descriptive of conditions throughout the plant. It is a description of one setting, the ERETZ (land, region) where God planted a garden and placed HAADAM, “the red-soil man.” Obviously, there were no thorns or weeds or carnivores because nobody plants a garden and includes those things! Outside of the garden there was always the “unplanted” wilderness and the various ecosystems which occupy planet earth. So there was most certainly rain, for example. It was just in the Eden region that one finds a lot of potential for a verdant garden—but not until there is a caretaker to manage what God has planted. There is no reason to assume that the entire planet was “paradise” or totally barren or anything else. The text simply focuses on HAADAM in the garden.

Not until the fall would HAADAM and Eve be cast out of the garden and have to face the realities in an “unplanted” wilderness where they had to start from scratch on their own. No doubt that also meant observing predators and prey. Thorns and weeds were new to them—but not new to the creation. Life outside a botanical garden preserve is hard living.

When I studied Hebrew, I became amazed that I had spent years reading my English Bible and not really letting the translation footnotes sink in. (Of course, not many were available until the 1960’s. The New International Bible was quite a big deal when it came out and yet it took me a while to notice footnotes like “or land/country/nation/region” every time ERETZ was the Hebrew word behind “the earth” in the traditional rendering.

I’ve always kicked myself that I naively assumed that “the earth” in my English Bible meant “planet earth” ----an embarrassing anachronism error on my part. Yet I didn’t give it much thought until I got into Hebrew lexicography. Even in 1611, the word “earth” carried only a secondary connotation of “planet earth”. Even in the King James Bible, “earth” was the opposite of sky/the heavens.

It took me many more years (despite my education that included the JEDP Documentary Hypothesis) to realize that there was no reason why God couldn’t choose to incorporate two ancient oral traditions—the Genesis 1 Hymnic Tribute to God and the Gen 2:5ff Garden Story—into a preface to the history of the Children of Israel. It explains why readers have long been wondering exactly how to “harmonize” the two. And it reminds us that we must try to understand Genesis as the ancients did. Of course, the average Christian who wants to understand sin and God’s involvement in his creation can do so without understanding all the details of ancient genres and lexicography.

1 Like
51

Couldn’t agree more with the first two clauses of your statement. You should read Edwards’ essay “The End for which God Created the World.” It’s right up your alley. You can find it here, starting on p. 117 of John Piper’s book “God’s Passion for His Glory.” Here are some relevant excerpts:

“I now proceed to consider what may, and what may not, be supposed to be God’s ultimate end in the creation of the world. Reason by itself is a defective guide. Indeed this affair seems properly to be an affair of divine revelation…” (From here, Edwards explains that he will nevertheless examine the question first according to reason, then according to the light of Scripture.)

"The notion of God creating the world, in order to receive any thing properly from the creature, is not only contrary to the nature of God, but inconsistent with the notion of creation… God’s moral rectitude consists in his valuing the most valuable, namely, himself. That if God himself be, in any respect, properly capable of being his own end in the creation of the world, then it is reasonable to suppose that he had respect to himself, as his last and highest end, in this work; because he is worthy in himself to be so, being infinitely the greatest and best of beings. All things else, with regard to worthiness, importance, and excellence, are perfectly as nothing in comparison of him…

"It is a thing infinitely good in itself that God’s glory should be known by a glorious society of created beings. And that there should be in them an increasing knowledge of God to all eternity, is worthy to be regarded by him, to whom it belongs to order what is fittest and best. If existence is more worthy than defect and non-entity, and if any created existence is in itself worthy to be, then knowledge is; and if any knowledge, then the most excellent sort of knowledge, viz. that of God and his glory… As there is an infinite fullness of all possible good in God—a fullness of every perfection, of all excellency and beauty, and of infinite happiness—and as this fullness is capable of communication, or emanation ad extra; so it seems a thing amiable [i.e., pleasant, admirable] and valuable in itself that this infinite fountain of good should send forth abundant streams… So if God both esteem and delight in his own perfections and virtues, he cannot but value and delight in the expressions and genuine effects of them. So that in delighting in the expressions of his perfections, he manifests a delight in himself; and in making these expressions of his own perfections his end, he makes himself his end.

"One part of that divine fullness which is communicated is the divine knowledge. That communicated knowledge, which must be supposed to pertain to God’s last end in creating the world, is the creature’s knowledge of HIM. For this is the end of all other knowledge, and even the faculty of understanding would be vain without it. And this knowledge is most properly a communication of God’s infinite knowledge, which primarily consists in the knowledge of himself. God, in making this his end, makes himself his end. This knowledge in the creature is but a conformity to God. It is the image of God’s own knowledge of himself…

“There are many reasons to think that what God has in view, in an increasing communication of himself through eternity, is an increasing knowledge of God, love to him, and joy in him. And it is to be considered that the more those divine communications increase in the creature, the more it becomes one with God; for so much the more is it united to God in love, the heart is drawn nearer and nearer to God, and the union with him becomes more firm and close, and at the same time, the creature becomes more and more conformed to God. The image is more and more perfect, and so the good that is in the creature comes forever nearer and nearer to an identity with that which is in God. In the view therefore of God, who has a comprehensive prospect of the increasing union and conformity through eternity, it must be an infinitely strict and perfect nearness, conformity, and oneness. For it will forever come nearer and nearer to that strictness and perfection of union which there is between the Father and the Son. So that in the eyes of God, who perfectly sees the whole of it, in its infinite progress and increase, it must come to an eminent fulfillment of Christ’s request, in John 17:21, 23. That they all may be ONE, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE in us; I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in ONE.”

Amen

52

Thanks for your post. I must confess that I have a lot to read (and a book to complete or my publisher may have a few things to say!). However I will make this comment. We Christians rely on revelation of God, by God, through His Son, as the basis for our faith. I have been fascinated by the “how” of revelation. Virtually all Christian theology accepts that sin separates us from God, and yet we believe that we may comprehend God’s revelation of Himself. This area imo is profound and my opinion is that all human beings may respond to revelation via an intrinsic understanding of goodness, and from there we may apply our capacity to reason at a personal level. This removes so many obstacles to understanding the human condition, and enables us to understand that there a good people, no matter if they a theists or atheists. Indeed the heart is drawn closer to God, AND a good person obtains a deeper appreciation of what is good, and the need to reject evil in whatever guise it presents itself.

1 Like
53

Claiming “Billions of years is obvious to EVERYONE " is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to the majority” and on that basis alone your “argument” fails.

Furthermore, NOT everyone believes in the billions of years which is based on the assumptions in uniformitarianism.

The extract from the article I posted clearly demonstrated the huge flaw from the start in Meredith Kline’s argument and the other two articles thoroughly and rigorously drilled down into the Framework Hypothesis. I think that if you found a flaw in those well researched articles you would have presented your findings but in the absence of a serious counter argument I will draw my own conclusion.

[content removed by moderation]

Thanks for your time and consideration.

56

Yes, draw your own conclusions. I don’t have the faith to move mountains, and neither do I have the faith to ignore them. Perhaps the Lord will forgive me for these flaws. In the meantime, the audience that I seek lives in the 21st century, so I will concentrate my efforts upon them. Trying to change the unchangeable is not on my bucket list.

57

Hi Jon,

I’m not sure it can. I always seem to be running 5 years behind the latest fashions. All I have to do to embarrass my kids is walk outside in public.

The point here is that human choices change over time, unlike DNA mutation rates.

Your incisive statement applies to gravity and electromagnetic radiation just as well as to evolution.

I would simply define “natural” as that which can be measured and modeled without needing to make any explicit references to ultimate causation or teleology. With such a definition of “natural,” physicists, geologists, biologists, and the like can go about their work without looking over their shoulders at the philosophy police.

Not that I’m insinuating anything about you personally, Jon. You love to talk about ultimate causation and teleology, which is a lot of fun. It’s good to have friends like you around to remind everyone of the limits of science.

Best,
Chris Falter

1 Like
58

Chris

Well, it’s true that human statistical behaviour can vary over time, but all kinds of human science depends on making statistical predictions within defined populations, including my own profession of medicine. Stop me if I’m wrong, though, but aren’t mutation rates only assumed to be constant in order to model the molecular clock, rather than being an observed universal law of life? The varied standards of error correction throughout the history of life alone, apart from other variables, would seem to make it an ideal, rather than a reliable metric.

The problem here is that we are explicitly discussing the very matter of whether and how God is involved in the world (the “Creation” part of “Evolutionary Creation”), so “natural” is not being used in a methodological, value-free, limitations of science kind of way to enable scientific investigation to be fruitful, but as a claim about how things happen.

One might say, I suppose, “Evolution happens naturally, but God provides ultimate causation and teleology”, but I’m not sure what that means either, if anything, because it simply says what is true of even human acts - if I hit a ball, it happens naturally (ie according to nature’s laws), but I provide ultimate causation and teleology and a hefty whack. More often, to say that something happens naturally is to exclude personal causation. Though as C S Lewis pointed out, “natural” is as much a weasel word for scientists as it is for philologists, if they looked over their shoulders a bit more often!

1 Like
59

Neither. The mutation rate is a phenotype, or perhaps more accurately a trait. It is not constant across the tree of life or throughout time, though it hovers around a somewhat predictable level for reasons still under investigation.

2 Likes
60

Absolutely. I was not trying to imply that there is a universal, constant mutation rate; rather that there are predictable mutation rates for particular circumstances and clades. However, I’m sure I could have written more clearly. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
61

Perhaps you would like to give a definition of “natural” that would provide a sense of mission and purpose for the scientists among us, both Christian and atheist. Give it a hefty whack!

62

I think he already has … if you search over on the Hump. Not to say we shouldn’t look forward to any pithy reply Jon wants to make here on that, but seriously, there is a wealth of essays over there! Here’s one from last month that touches on this subject, but Jon can no doubt point to others more authoritatively.