It may be a flaw but i take ToE as atheisitc because, in essence scinece is atheistic inasmuch as God is not a factor it can consider or identify.
It is here that I have been arguing futiley. Obviously God’s hand cannot be identified in any aspect of scientific understanding, but Hid Nature can be seen by those who beleive. My argumant has always been that the mechanisms that control such things as gravity or meteorolgy do not conflict woth God;s nature whare as the mechanisms identified in ToE do not. There is chaos, chance, and crueltywithin ToE that hits a bias toewards strenght and might (Survival of the fittest etc) which does not refect on the understanding I have of God (and i am not alone)
Ihve never claimed that evolution is completely wrong, only that it is incomplete or innaccurate in all of its (scientific) understanding. These shortfalls make the difference between aethieistic and theistic evolution.
I would also politely suggest that Chrstians who support ToE have inserted God into it as a matter of course and do not see a need to identify where, or even to confirm to their collegues that He is there.
It is not my place to “judge” such a view although it would be nice if some here would admit it.
It would be more appropriate to label science as agnostic. Evolutionary biology, gravity, etc. do not imply God’s absence. A Christian should perceive the patterns of natural laws as reflecting God’s design and ongoing direction of creation, but that is because we work from the theological insight of knowing that God is working all things for good for those who are His. Indeed, knowing that God has put all of creation in order gives a solid basis for doing science, rather than the mere empirical “it works so far”. But, as Ecclesiastes points out, one working solely from the physical evidence ends with a question mark - no more able to prove God’s absence than His presence. Science is merely looking for patterns within physical creation. The foolishness of claiming that it provides an intellectually satisfying atheism is quickly apparent if one thinks about key intellectual issues beyond the reach of science such as aesthetics, ethics, and philosophy. Indeed, claims to produce scientific versions of those have generally turned out very badly.
Evolution can proceed through competition but also through cooperation. Obviously, creation is not a safe place. But Psalm 29 and Job 41, for example, see that as grounds for praise. Perhaps the six-year-old idea that Tyrannosaurus is really cool has more theological insight than the sentimentality of complaining about predation. After all, predation and parasitism contribute to producing a vast diversity of organisms, if the latter is a goal of God.
Inserting God into science is viewing science as basically atheistic. Instead, we should see science as being the Christian way of investigating physical processes. God is not an add-on, but the very context.
This is wonderful theory but almost impossible to put into practice, if not in approach, in disemination. Sceientist often come across as atheistic or dogmatic, or both. The charitable part of me puts it doen to naivity or lack of thought in terms of how it is seen or understood.
If this thread does nothing ese it highlights the difference between intent and perception. The choice of words can be more perplexing than estimated.
In other words, God is an explanation not for things but for why we can even have explanations of things.
That was a topic tossed around in our informal intelligent design club.
Our conclusion is that the only ethics possible rationally from atheism rests on self-interest, and that ends up boiling down to the Golden Rule. Aesthetics got reduced to mathematics, that human eyes are attracted to certain proportions and/or average appearances (apparently the human concept of human beauty can be mathematically shown to veer towards the mathematically average). Philosophy – for an atheist philosophy should end at “Cogito ergo sum” as the only firm conclusion that rason can reach.
This reminds me of how my niece at six years old announced proudly to her dad, “I’m eating Bambi!” when we served her some venison steak.
Interesting thought. Seeing science as excluding God is an inherently atheistic position.
You just had to bring that in didn’t you!
(and proveyour misunderstanding)
I don’t know why I bother.
There is no cruelty in geology or meteorology, they are completely impartial with no aiity to identify or see any life. There may be a little chaos in geology depending on how tectonic plates work, ANy interaction with humanity could be minimalised but we just have to build on fault lines or near active vulcanoes!
Meteorology is 100$ internally balancing with specific and unalterable results. The cause of meteorolical change may be less controlled but again it has nothng to do with life other than maybe human endeavour and by-product. As such any “cruelty” is human formed, Ifyou happen to be in the path of a tornado, you know what to do you can’t blame the tornado or accuse it of chasing you.
Reminds me of the police questoning a man who’s car hit a tree
“And what speed was the tree doing when it leaped out in front of you?”
But, the principle of “randomness” applies to meteorology, just as it does to genetic mutations. The complexity of factors that produce weather are such that we could never hope to model them deterministically. Meteorology uses “random methods” in models that predict weather patterns. They are successful over the short term because there is enough deterministic modelling on the macroscopic scale to add structure to the randomness, but ultimately we cannot realistically expect to describe weather patterns with completely deterministic models.
No one is attributing morality to weather, rather that the scientific use of the term “random” applies to meteorology just the same as genetic mutations in biology.
I’m just trying to explain what I think is the point people are making about randomness in biology and meteorology.
Any randomness in the weather is only random because we are not aware of the cause. In acutality there is always a cause for the change in weather be it air pressure ot temoerature. The vairables are limited.
In ToE it is the randomenss of the changes that dictates what can change. If no change occurs when other factors change then there will be no adaption. But even that is not the point.
Yes it is the morality of ToE that does not reflect God. It is biased to the strong, or the “Blessed” (having the right adaptions) and the cunning . It dismisses the weak, the unfotrtunate (Not adapted) and the inocent.
Except that is not what we actually see. Yes there are those whose adaptions justify their existence, but there are “freaks” and anomolies and “inocents” who defy Natural selection or who survived, not because they were the best, but because there was no competition. If there is no choice, Natural Selection is redundant.
The irony of ToE is that it can only fully function if there is guidance. If the "randomness is removed there are no “gaps”, or “Impossible transitions”…
(But, of course, scientists claim that no such transitions or gaps exist)
I guess this point has been made many times and I won’t belabour it. Many of us do not attribute any morality to ToE. It is a scientific theory, independent of morality.
And yes, the problem of pain and suffering in the world, created by a Loving God, is a deep theological discussion, and I don’t have any answers other than what has been written by better theologians than I.
Scientists only assess the data they seem relevant.
Claimiing ToE has no morality is just burying your head in the sand or refusing to look in that direction.
Science may be amoral. But if they are going to impose theories onto the world they must take account of the fact that morality is rated high in the world whether yiu are religious or not. The notioon that Might is right has caused more conflicts than even religion. “I did it because I could” is a two edged sword that can be used to justify any crime that goes unnoticed or unpunished.
The point here being that Scientists cannot hold up their hands and say “it is not our concern” and expect there to be no come back or complaint.
I know this isn’t the context which @RichardG originally brought that up for … but I also am bursting with a comment (coming from some recent Holy Post episode I listened to) …
The old saying was that “Might makes right” - which many still (hopefully?) recognize as problematic. But there is an equally disturbing permutation of that which has surfaced here in the U.S. in the last decade: “Right deserves Might”. As in: being right about important things means you should be more entitled to rule over your neighbor who is not as “right” about things as you are. Couple that with our penchant for certainty about our own rightness, and… there you have it! … the state of any mind from any tribe that is hopped up on certainty!
This thread has spawned some interesting discussions, but as the person who started this thread in the first place, I think I need to point out that they have by and large drifted off topic.
This thread was never intended to be about evolution specifically.
It was never intended to be about philosophy.
It was never intended to be about the theological implications of randomness.
It was never intended to be about whether someone is referring to world class university towns or to something completely different when they mention Cambridge and St Andrews in the same sentence.
It was about a very specific problem that I see happening in some Christian circles from time to time, especially when the subject of science in general turns up.
It is a problem that was raised and highlighted by the oft-cited 2011 Barna report into the top six reasons why young Christians leave church:
I’m sure that this is a problem that all of us, including @adamjedgar and @RichardG, would agree is something to be avoided. None of us want our churches to be hostile to inquiring outsiders, while at the same time they should be places where those within who are struggling can find support and encouragement, not condemnation and accusation on account of things that they are required to understand and put into practice in order to do their jobs properly. No-one should be made to feel ashamed or embarrassed on account of their Oxbridge or Ivy League education. No-one should be made to feel pressured to lower their professional standards in order to endorse views that are blatantly and obviously untrue.
The specific problem is Christians who come across as antagonistic or hostile towards scientifically educated individuals while believing that they are actually being welcoming and supportive. I was specifically wanting to highlight ways in which I have to say to people, “Hey, you say you’re being pro-science, or supportive of scientists, but at the same time you are saying <insert statement here> that conveys a completely different impression.”
There’s another problem that seems to have become apparent here. Far too often, when I start talking about science in general, there are some people who jump straight to the conclusion that I’m trying to bash them over the head with evolution. When in actual fact, the thing that is at the forefront of my mind is how I ended up getting rid of all my maths and physics textbooks in my late twenties because I was feeling embarrassed and ashamed about having a degree from a top university in the subject. None of the textbooks in question even mentioned evolution.
I think that we get so fixated on these philosophical and theological debates at times that we lose sight of the fact that at the same time, we are dealing with people’s lives, their jobs and careers, their passions and interests, and their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Forgive me, but, when you worded this thread your tact went out the window. What was clearly meant as a plea for impartiality came across as an attack on philosophising Christians who do not place the sceintific method in the same esteem as you do.
As far as i can tell, no one is claimiing that scientists are deceitful, or inept, or soemhow twisting the truth, Howeve, you have been known to claim this of others.
You compllain about the respect of your job, how about the respect of my faith and beleifs? You proclaim how right science is and must be without thought that what you proclaim may come into conflict wth other people’s faith. It doesn’t matter how you have reconciled science and faith, what matters is how others also see it. What they “Hear”.
This inot a one way street. The “offence” can be felt both ways.
Whether you like it of not Evolution is the main contention between faith and science. Others have tried to make it all science but that is just blindsiding. I do not know any christian who has a problem with meteorolgy. Geology is a slightly different issue if you are YEC, which I am not.
Hopefuly this thread has danced about enough for you to get a glimpseo how scientists can offend Religion as well as how Religion can offend scientists.
As you almost concede. it is not personal. No one is claiming that scientists are atheists automatically or that you cannot reconcile your work and your faith., but
Faith is very personal. My faith matters to me as much if not more than your job does to you. Just bare that in mind when you lash out.
If I have been a little too hard on you , I am sorry.
It probably won’t make a difference to most of my kin, but I may try to share your post with some, … particularly with those who believe that I’m in a “cult” just because I believe in the crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, even though I’m unchurched and have been (mostly) for over 35 years.
