Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism

Yes, since the Great Leap Forward; i.e., since the beginning of humankind and the Noosphere.
Al Leo

@Eddie,

The description of what you hope to receive seems quite reasonable to my ears … and no doubt you have kept careful notes whenever I have offered the details of my views to you.

I just wish that I was important enough to be confident that didn’t keep your notes on my tentative opinion on flash paper, stored near a candle.

If you had been building relationships with the leaders of BioLogos … and used your real name instead of a Nom de Guerre … you probably would have had all the opinions you would want to shake a stick at !

Dawkins makes that assumption. He believes he has logically closed the “God Gap” in the evolution of the human eye (on which I agree), but then concludes that all such apparent Gaps that still exist, such as in abiogenesis and the GLF, are just that–apparent and not real. We need to wait and see.
Al Leo

@Eddie

Why would I be telling that to @Jon_Garvey? I’m T.e.l.l.i.n.g. it to You, @Eddie.

And Jon is not the one that is constantly pleading with BioLogos supporters to Spill Their Guts (to the nice man in the mask… who won’t reveal his name).

Hmmmm… I distinctly perceive that someone is changing the topic… how deft…

Hi Eddie,

A blessed Advent and merry Christmas to you and yours.

Chris

When I first started following the arguments posted on this Forum, I was taken aback at the use of terms like “anti-ID forces” and the E.C. camp as if describing a battlefield. Almost like describing Rommel and Monty maneuvering at El Alamein. I do not believe this disagreement should have become so confrontational, but obviously it has. Growing up Catholic, I was taught that God wrought many miracles in the past. As I pursued a career in science, it was obvious that the scarcity of miracles in modern times was due to the fact that modern science could now explain most of them as “natural”, and so they weren’t miracles at all. But could it be that there was so much “miraculous design” built into “Nature” at the instant of the Big Bang that no further ‘outside’ intervention was needed to achieve the marvelous Universe we now observe? Apparently Einstein’s ‘God who doesn’t play dice’ was this sort of Diety whose creativity was entirely top-loaded.

So where does Al Leo stand? My area of science is physical chemistry, and so is not as concerned with design as much, perhaps, as is biology and biochemistry. Nevertheless, as I try to predict all the effects of hydrogen bonding, I am overwhelmed at enormous effect it has on everything that surrounds me–an almost miraculous effect, if you will. To list just a few: 1) It is the force that stabilizes the oil/water compartments that must have preceded the first membrane-bound living cells; 2) It is responsible for the structures of RNA (cloverleaf) and DNA (helix) that must zip and unzip with just the right amount of force; 3) It is responsible for H2O being able to exist as a gas, liquid and solid all at moderate temperatures; 4) It is responsible for proteins to fold into exact 3D shapes that are needed as bio-catalysts, and to mis-fold into Prions to cause disease; 5) It is responsible for the very rare property of H2O to be less dense as a solid than as a liquid, thus avoiding a permanent ‘snowball Earth’; etc.

Currently the best mathematicians are not satisfied they can ‘explain’ the properties of a simple substance as H2O. Was water ‘intelligently designed’? I believe so, but perhaps ‘sometime’ before the Big Bang, BBB (as if there was Time before then.) But what about the architecture of some of some of the intricate biological machines (e.g. ribosomes) that depend on hydrogen bonding? Are these instances of ‘outside intervention’? I don’t see why that cannot be considered. At least that possibility might be kept open until we make every effort to apply what knowledge we already possess . The possibility of ID should not hinder scientific inquiry in any way; so why the big fuss???
Al Leo

4 Likes

Hi Eddie -

It has occurred to me that I can very briefly explain my thoughts on evolution and God’s providence and/or intervention.

First, here’s how I define terms. (As a professional in the area, you may disagree with my amateurish thoughts, but here they are…)

Providence - God’s interaction with the creation in a way that is indistinguishable from “natural laws” (relativity, electromagnetism, quantum weirdness, stochastic DNA mutations, etc.).

Intervention - God’s interaction with the creation in a way that is distinguishable from “natural laws.” In this category I would place the resurrection of Jesus, walking on water, Paul casting out demons, and such.

As I have examined the evidence from biologists, paleontologists, and geologists, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing about evolution/common descent that points to Intervention rather than Providence. This does not mean that God couldn’t have subtly introduced a particular DNA sequence at just the right time, or made sure a massive meteor struck the Yucatan Peninsula at the end of the Cretaceous. It just means that we have no way of distinguishing any such action from the lawlike operations of nature. Therefore, evolution and common descent do not belong in the Intervention category.

The jury is still out about the first cell, but I think they are leaning away from a decision for Intervention.

At the same time, there is nothing about biology, or the earth, or the solar system, or astronomy, or any of the sciences, which is outside the purview of God’s Providence. God designed the universe and He upholds it at every moment.

My disagreement with many ID thinkers – and I mentioned 3 specific names earlier – is that they believe that certain kinds of biological evidence point incontrovertibly toward an “intelligent designer” who intervened outside the operations of natural law to introduce biological designs. The 90+% of biologists who accept the theory of evolution have shown quite capably how Behe’s irreducible complexities and Axe’s protein domains (for example) are well explained as lawlike operations of nature, in my opinion.

Hope this helps you sleep peacefully this evening.

Warm Advent wishes,
Chris Falter

@Eddie

There is a significant difference between coming here, which has baggage in some corners, and going to a credible university and studying biological evolution. Of course, most opponents of evolution would not do that since they don’t trust the, “atheistic” professors, which is a huge part of the problem and is why they don’t learn anything here. As well, I think most dissenters come here to ague and not learn anything. I think it precious few the number of doubters who’ve perused the, “evidence” section of this website. [quote=“Eddie, post:105, topic:18370”]
Every EC who thinks that God planned and determined the outcomes needs to say out loud in very unambiguous words that he thinks that God planned and determined the outcomes. That will go a long way toward relieving doubts and suspicions.

Richard_Wright1:
[/quote]

I think the vast, vast majority of ECs think that God planned and determined the outcomes of evolution, but they may not have a involved theory as to exactly how that happens and that may be some of what causes angst among doubters.[quote=“Eddie, post:105, topic:18370”]
Tell me how you got the 95% number.
[/quote]

There is no survey, article or anything published that mentioned that number. That is only from talking to my friends and bloggers here, the, “ECs on the street” if you will. The vast majority of us believe that God intentioned the outcome of evolution though we may differ on exactly how (as can be seen from some comments below). I don’t know anyone who would even consider the theories you post from EC leaders. In fact, I don’t even know the names of EC leaders besides Biologos folks and Denis Lamoureux.
.

3 Likes

Eddie, if we are to use both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature in the attempt to better understand some of the characteristics of our Creator, then we better be darned sure we are giving the optimal reading to each book. In reconstructing the history of Life on Earth, we will never achieve an exact accounting, but we should strive for the optimal–which is the most reasonable account possible with the evidence at hand. I beg to differ–strongly differ–when you characterize our present knowledge of how the human eye developed (say the version in Wikipedia) as sketchy and superficial. This is a clear example of an ID position that has a negative impact on how science and religious faith should complement each other. To be more precise, you are discounting valid evidence from paleontology that has a direct bearing on theodicy. Let me expand my thoughts on this point:

Tennyson was probably the first to use the phrase "evolution, red in tooth and claw". @Relates is the minority voice in pointing out that evolution also depends a great deal on cooperation. Like Isaiah, most Christians hope for a New Creation where the lion will lie down with the lamb. From an anthropocentric view, that’s more like a loving Creator should have planned things. But what is the evidence we should take from Nature? What are the forces that drive Natural Selection? From my reading of current paleontology, there was hardly anything that could be called predator and prey before the Cambrian era. Sea pens and burrowing worms went their separate ways in the Ediacaran era. Things changed drastically in the Cambrian. Larger, hard shelled animals not only left more fossils for study, they showed clear evidence of predator (anomalocaris) preying upon prey (trilobite). Thus began the evolutionary ‘arms race’–weapons (powerful pincers & claws) vs. defenses (photosensor cells to detect the shadows of predators). Subsequent fossils show how these photocells gradually invaginated to form camera-like cavities with pinhole lenses, later replaced with clear proteins. Until evidence to the contrary replaces it, this scenario provides a reasonable (not sketchy or superficial) basis for believing that God’s method of creating allows for suffering and deadly competition–physical ‘evil’ 500 million years previous to the appearance of humankind who could be found guilty of moral evil; i.e. Sin.

As I see it, Eddie, an over-zealous application of I.D. is unlikely to be a barrier to true science and should not be faulted on that score. However, it could foster a warped theology; e.g. a wizard of Oz type of God who needs to tinker (change the ground rules) continually to keep the Universe on course. This stance probably makes me unwelcome in both “camps”.
Al Leo

1 Like

Yes, I’m a human being.

We’re not relying on just human rationality to distinguish those events from lawlike operations of nature. We have the testimony of Scripture, God’s written Word. But maybe I missed a reference in the book of Job to the great meteor of the Yucatan. And then there’s that walking fish in the Epistle to the Devonians, right?

Okay, Eddie, I’ll make you a deal. You tell me whether the following events were supernatural interventions or lawlike operations of nature:

  • The 1755 earthquake and tsunami in Lisbon
  • Malala Yousafzai’s survival of a gunshot wound to the head
  • The air that rushed into your lungs when you took your last breath

Please describe in fulsome detail the role of God’s providence in each of these events. However, do not exceed the ordinary length of a forum post. Once you have done so, perhaps I’ll understand your definitions well enough to give you the answers you seek.

Advent blessings,
Chris

5 Likes

@Chris_Falter,

Your proposed list is telling. For generations, something is usually considered a miracle if it seems contrary to expectations, or super-natural.

Earthquakes, while sometimes called an Act of God, are certainly not super-natural. Nature is said to accomplish them all the time. And the air rushing into one’s lungs with one’s last breath seems the least “super” of natural events. There is no way to prevent this event without some clever intervention.

But the survival of a young lady from a gunshot wound to the head… of your three items, might be considered the least likely or the most “super”. But even here… unless we have the assurances of a surgeon … that the bullet did not strike an area known to allow survival… I would be of a mixed mind whether this was a true miracle or not.

I wonder what @Eddie will say …