I also see the earth revolving around the sun and fully understand the meaning of the sun rises and the sun sets.
I also fully reject - with contempt i might add - the notion that Darwinian evolution is science. It’s not. It’s pure false religion and the more we actually know about the biological and chemical make-up of the cell and biological systems in general, the more obvious it becomes just how deeply idolatrous the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is for the Christian.
Evolution is basically another god, and it’s not the same one of the bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Darwinian evolution is not science and not scientific no matter how many fossils are dug up and how many mutations are tracked. It just defies any logic regarding the creation of the super sophisticated biological systems that puts even the best of mankind’s current creations to shame.
Prode, do you have the same contempt for astrophysics and meteorology? Do not confuse science with Sciencism, evolution with Evolutionism, and for that matter the Bible with Biblism.
You do understand, yes?, that the term Darwinian Evolution is usually reserved for those who are explaining how evolution works in the absence of God, right?
And that BioLogos does not specify Darwinian Evolution in its mission statements, right?
BioLogos teaches the relevance of God’s role in Evolution… so this is not about idolatry, right?
Happy Advent to you and yours. Whenever you’re ready to provide the definition of providence and how it applies to the 3 events, we’ll be able to have a productive conversation. Until then, it’s just ECs talking and Eddie throwing darts. I’d rather have the productive conversation.
I heartily agree with this. I like this topic (evolution and providence) and find it very interesting. However, I couldn’t possibly be less interested in an endless game of theological “gotcha” hosted by Eddie.
I’m not sure who is on this “jury”. Scientists who strictly follow their profession can NEVER make a decision FOR intervention. They can, like Behe, claim they have eliminated every other LIKELY possibility, and intervention is the only option left to explain the complexity of, say, the motor that drives a flagellum. A famous example of the dangers of this kind of “proof” (absence of any other known mechanism) is Lord Kelvin’s claim that thermodynamics showed that the age necessary for Darwinian evolution to take place was much greater than the sun’s age, because no known source of energy (gravitational contraction, meteor strikes, etc.) could keep it radiating for that long. Of course the energy of nuclear fission/fusion could not be considered because it was unknown then. The same might apply to explaining biological mechanisms. We cannot be confident of “proof of intervention” until we know everything there is to know. Not likely in this life.
But to maintain that the flagellum’s motor is NOT an evidence of design, is absolutely foolish. Asking “What is the source of that design?” is not foolish.
Al Leo
Hi Eddie,
It’s foolish to discuss a view God’s interacting with nature only with respect to evolution, in isolation from other types of outcomes. The reason is that what seems easy to affirm, or obvious, or morally compelling with respect to biological history might, when applied to other types of outcomes, suddenly seem less easy/obvious/compelling. Which would then lead a serious thinker to question whether the answer given with respect to evolution might, at a minimum, require extra nuance, if not in fact whole-scale revision.
So I think you have more work to do before we have something to discuss. How would you apply your view of providence and determinism to the three events I cited? As a friend of mine said recently,
Eddie, most of my colleagues are either atheists or agnostics (predominantly the latter) and Behe is a practicing Catholic (I’m told) as I am. So, on a personality basis, I feel prejudiced toward Behe. But do I automatically think he is more honest in approaching the problems in his field? NO. My agnostic friends are just as dedicated in seeking ‘scientific Truth’ as is the Christian, Behe. The quotations above make me think you believe otherwise. Their “built in bias” is based on the impossibility of proving with certainty any negative–impossible, that is, until you already posses total knowledge.
Al Leo
Absolutely … in my personal view, what God planned is exactly what evolved.
To me this is equivalent to the idea that implied in the story of Genesis is that God
knew Adam and Eve would break his rule. And I accept this.
Eddie, since I have been active on this Forum, you have been the most consistent response to my posts. And I have enjoyed our interactions very much. But this response to Chris is the first time I have a clear idea of your stance on God’s role in evolution. Just call me dense, I guess. Your position is quite different than mine, but that is perhaps the reason I have especially enjoyed our repartee. I enjoy exchanges with whom I disagree more than those with whom I do. I learn more, I guess.
This will give you a good laugh: Since I was little, I wondered what it would be like to be God. I was told He was ‘outside of Time’, so He knew everything that ever was and ever will be. So how does He keep from being bored? I got the answer (that satisfied me as a kid, and still does) when I learned that He created all life through evolution. And He gave evolution so much freedom that even He did not know for sure what would turn up. He enjoys being surprised Oh, he had a general purpose in mind. Given enough time, one or more of His creatures would possess a Mind which would enable that creature to know of Him, and perhaps even try to please Him. As I matured, chose science as a career, and learned more about the marvelous Universe we live in, everything seemed to fit that paradigm. And I am happy with it.
Your life took a different course, and you are comfortable with a different paradigm. That’s OK, especially since both of us seem convinced we are each serving some sort of purpose.
God bless.
Al Leo