I am still a practicing Catholic, Patrick, and as you have probably surmised, a very liberal one. So “evolution guided by God” fits nicely as a description of my belief–probably because the word, ‘guided’ leaves a lot of wriggle room. Also, I have taught adult confirmation classes in our parish which has a large percent Hiispanic and Philippino contingent, and I had great difficulty getting them to accept a theology that had anything to do with evolution. Perhaps I would be more successful after taking part in the Biologos Forum for a few months.(???)
Al Leo
2 Likes
Hi George.
I doubt that there is a way to predict which type of animal is better equipped to survive this type of floods. Land life has extremely little chance to survive a Flood, at least 500 m high, running at at speeds well above 200 km/h, the lower 100 m of the Flood having picked up sand, stones and even large rocks.
Sea live has more chance as they can continue to swim. But even whales have been found, beached far from the coast and recently one was found on a mountain near the Pacific coast.
On the site: Geology | Answers in Genesis I found a statement that there have been 50 Floods during the last 2.6 millions years, which fits with my on findings. (I don’t agree with their opinions.)
The Floods last some 3 weeks and the water flows with high speeds a few times round the globe over the continents.
Greetings, Jan.
Great … so how do elephants and giraffes tread water LONGER than marine dinosaurs? All the ELephant and Giraffe fossils are found in layers ABOVE dinosaurs … even MARINE dinosaurs…
George
First on the source of the metaphor … you wrote:
I don’t know whether TE or ID people appealed to the musician metaphor first, but Bill Dembski has been using it for years, and saying he prefers it to the clockmaker metaphor. He has documented its usage in the early Church Fathers and I think he even includes a Patristic passage or two in his collection of early Patristic writings on creation.
Thanks for this history lesson, Eddie. I’m not surprised that this metaphor might have some high caliber pedigree going way back. But … on to possible problems with it.
You write:
However, note that it does not fit in very well with the “laws of nature” metaphor, which suggests an inexorable course of events that would give the cosmic musician no freedom.
If I were forced to choose between a musician metaphor and a conception of a “law-abiding” universe, I will (or should say I already have) parted company with the latter conjecture. Now this may seem a bit disingenuous of me since, as a teacher I have used the language of laws myself in teaching physics and chemistry. But I only do so as a convenience and do not defend these things as proven to be woven into the actual fabric of the universe. I.e. I don’t think scientists (when they are doing science and thinking scientifically) think in terms of absolute laws. Rather, we acknowledge regularities and probabilities that give us a basis for holding some things as highly probable to the point of near certainty, based on inductive use of observations. So it amounts to something like … the chemical reaction will most certainly not produce more mass in products than the mass of consumed reactants because we’ve never before observed a counter-example to this despite much careful measurement. It’s left to publishers, educators, and polemicists to run with this and name it a “law” and bandy about words like “proven”. When it is something as basic and widely accepted as the “law of mass conservation”, it may seem like splitting hairs to call its label into question over the difference of 99.999… probability and 100 probability, but in discussions such as these with scope spanning all time and creation, that difference is significant. Our phrase “scientific law” just like our phrase “randomness” is really a term of ignorance (i.e. from human perspective). All it means is … “because we don’t know any better based on anything we’ve ever seen.” The sun always has risen in the morning. So we assume it always will over the course of any of our life spans. But that is only a high degree of confidence. Not proof. Some things are rare … so rare that certain cultures at certain times might have said “these things never happen” --and they would have had solid inductive footing for thinking so. But then it may be discovered that actually what seems to never happen has happened and indeed may happen on average one or two times over long eons. So an “impossibility” at one time span, can become a “regularity” on another.
All this is to say that I don’t put much stock in a philosophy that speaks of “natural laws” as if they were absolutes. They may be considered so as a practical or educational matter, but those are concessions to convenience; not assertions of any robust philosophy. But I do think that the regularities that thrust themselves on anybody of any observational capability at all are a source of wisdom that we heed (both scientifically and theologically). And this brings me to your great comment about jazz musicians which provokes me to press this musician metaphor to yet a deeper level of service. You wrote:
Whereas from a musical point of view, “tinkering” is just what you want. The Baroque keyboard musicians put in various ornaments on an ad lib. basis, and jazz musicians generally never play a piece exactly the same way twice.
What a wonderful comparison! So the musician exhibits fresh creativity, but always within the constraints of the instrument design. No two people are exactly alike; (there’s the creativity). And yet we aren’t just random, misshapen blobs of all different compositions and sizes either; (there’s the faithful regularity – the “law” if you will). The violinist can surprise us, but generally not by slamming the violin down repeatedly on the drum set to make percussive noise. It wasn’t designed to make music like that!
So God designs this universe in such a way as to bring about his purposes with life – with us. And that involves regularity so as to allow this to happen. We need a stable sun and planet --at least stable enough that it can have the time to support something. But no so stable that there are never any volcanoes, storms, or tectonics. If those things never happened, then the surface would never get replenishment of nutrients or maybe even essentials that we aren’t yet aware of. Your image of a Jazz musician captures the creative freedom, but also it calls our attention to the necessary self-constraint of that freely chosen design which can’t be ignored if the instrument is to be played very well. It’s a wonderful blend of what we in our limited perspectives would learn to call “laws” along with God’s total freedom to use it all as he will (and does) --exhibiting faithfulness (those laws again) to his own design.
Sorry about the delayed reply here, George.
I’m all for clarity of terms and reduction of unnecessary confusion and strife. But I don’t think the introduction of yet another label to an already large population will go the miles that you wish. It isn’t the mere name of something (especially in this case) that offends its opponents. It is the something itself. Pretty wrapping paper is better than foul or deceiving paper, yes… But it would be condescending to your foes to think they are only objecting to the given labels.
I think you don’t understand my point here. I am not endorsing the use of another label because I think Creationists have an irrational dislike to the other terms.
I endorse using a substitute because the OLD terms are too divisive and argumentative.
Theoretically … just looking at the words (without looking at who usually uses the words)… there’s not a linguistic difference between “Theistic Evolution” and “Intelligent Design”. Both involve God … and both (can) involve miraculous speciation.
I for one will NEVER waste another moment disputing what TE an ID really mean - - they are time wasters and can inflame disputes.
George
Merv
Your metaphor is very apt. It’s very easy to chack the way the Bible describes God’s relationship with the universe, and throughout it’s instrumental - he hasn’t made it to do good stuff, but so that he can use it to do good stuff.
The “good stuff” in question has a lot to do with his relationship to mankind (blessing, impressing, punishing and more). Yet even man - the closest one could get to something that could be made just “for it’s own sake” - in fact wasn’t - he was made to rule and subdue the earth on God’s behalf.
In your metaphor (and beginning to push it too far!) that would make mankind like a string section under the playing leader (instrumnents and music being his work).
Speaking as a musician, I’d feel overjoyed, not manipulated, if I played some J S Bach and a voice with a German accent said, “That’s exactly what I had in mind when I wrote it!” And Bach isn’t God.
1 Like
No, I guess he isnt. But he is closer than anyone else
“But he’s coercive! He doesn’t give me anything to improvise and show MY creativity off! Just notes to follow! What about ME???” 
My apologies for the late response - on an intercontinental flight right now.
The short version of my response would be that I believe that the relationship of God to the universe is close to what you describe but with some qualifiers (in ): He can “predict [and determine] every event that happens in the universe throughout its entire existence [, possibly] from the initial position”. The “[and determine]” qualifier emphasizes our agreement that just foreknowledge is not enough and “[possibly]” specifies that I would not go as far as to claim that the only way for God to “predict and determine” is for the universe to be “a closed causal continuum of necessary consequences” in the sense of “Laplace to the nth degree”. I would also add that these metaphysical views on the natural world may or may not be the same as those for the spiritual world.
Now, while what you describe is not a position that I would claim as the foundation for my understanding of the universe, it still is one which I could live with if that’s how things turned out to be. As such, I am comfortable with theological positions where this would be a requirement, such as a front-loaded view of evolution where all “contingencies” are merely a reflection of our limited knowledge.
It might not have been intended for me to comment on this sentence but I’d just like to reiterate that I do not see “true randomness” as a requirement of neo-Darwinism - as we covered on this thread, stochastic events are sufficient to explain biological theories of evolution. I presume you’re referring to “what some neo-Darwinism supporters claim” rather than “what neo-Darwinism requires” but I just thought I’d clarify how I’m reading it.
In this model I would agree with you that God must “tinker” or “intervene” with events, as otherwise I cannot see how it would be possible for God to respond to prayer or guarantee that events will turn out as He wants them to.
I agree with you that one cannot have the cake and eat it too - front-loading without tinkering only works with full determinism (even if we don’t see it) and, alternatively, randomness or unpredictability to God only works if God is continually tinkering with His creation. Personally, I do not like the theological implications of the latter approach that God would have “imperfect” foreknowledge of the universe and would have to constantly “fix” things that He would have no control over - do you also see this as an intrinsic theological issue with the latter view of reality?
Jon wrote:
In your metaphor (and beginning to push it too far!) that would make mankind like a string section under the playing leader (instrunents and music being his work).
There do seem to be many aspects of this metaphor that can be explored --or indeed stretched beyond a point of diminishing returns. I too wondered about God in the sense (as you phrase it) a “string leader” — or even the conductor of the entire orchestra. But one reason I very deliberately did not take it there is that I very specifically resonate with how this metaphor (in which we are among the instruments with all the rest of creation, living and inanimate) stays closer to the potter and the pot metaphor. It takes us with all of our free will and moral responsibility, and despite our intellectual self-aggrandizement in having those things, showcases that God is nonetheless simultaneously and completely using us for His purposes. Whereas a conductor only has apparent control, depending on what the musicians are able or willing to grant. God, on the other hand, will use us despite ourselves; even if we try to openly rebel.
I also thought about who the composer of the piece in our musician metaphor would be – God, obviously. But the question then remains if we are allowed to, at any points, be “co-composers” alongside. There too, I see the metaphor being of less service and perhaps needing to yield to other already established metaphors. But I really do like this one [of people as God’s instruments] --as you have probably gathered.
Thanks for the affirmation.
Al - one of BioLogos’s main goals is to promote educational initiatives helping to bridge exactly this gap. Would you mind sharing some of the sticking points that were challenging for this particular group you interacted with?
Merv
You’re right to delimit the metaphor as per your penultimate post - the last one is, in a way, a different position.
The beauty of the baroque analogy - where the form and content are so complete in themselves - is that the skills of the players are not ignored, but assumed. In other words, as Bach’s music requires the very best musicians in order to display its genius, so God “takes us with our free will and moral responsibility” (in your words), expressing his music through them.
As you know, most of the music I actually play is improvisational, and I seldom get to play Bach. It’s tempting, therefore, to try and project that on to God and say that real music is Ornette Coleman playing to no set script. But, quite simply, that’s where the analogy fails - we may be God’s sensitive musicians, but he insists that creation, as such, is his and his alone (eg Isa 44.24).
That was, of course, utterly known by a real genius like Bach himself, who would have none of the “shared copyright” stuff and signed each piece “soli Deo gloria” - to the glory of God alone.
@Nuno
Perhaps 20% of the young adults in my confirmation classes said they had outgrown the simple story of Adam created ‘instantaneously’ and placed in a garden where everything was perfect–only to disobey God and then be subject to suffering and death. So they welcomed a way to reconcile evolution with their Faith. The other 80% probably harbored doubts about the ‘perfect creation’ scenario, but were uneasy about giving up the concept of Original Sin being the reason humans needed a redeemer. I felt I was not presenting a convincing case for Original Blessing and the concept that Genesis 2 was actually the story of God offering humans the opportunity to become Created Co-creators with Him and rising above the selfish demands that evolution and ‘natural selection’ imposes. But, as I read the blogs and forum discussions on this BioLogos site, most of the very bright, well-educated contributors also have difficulty in accepting this admittedly liberal theology as well. The majority of the students coming to my class had a very simple Faith that would guide them to a good life; that is: Our first parents were created sinless and placed in Eden, but they sinned and we inherited that sinfulness, thus needing a redeemer. If the ‘more theoretical theology’ I was offering them was not fully accepted, but only disturbed the simple Faith they already had, then I was doing them no favor. So I quit. Perhaps in interacting with this BioLogos group I can now make a more convincing argument, but at my age it’s too late.
Al Leo
@aleo Albert,
Next time you get a chance, could you experiment with a new way to approach the “harmonizing” of Eden?
Rather than discuss Adam and Eve as originally perfect - - what if you said that all mortal creation is flawed because they were not created as Angels or as proxies for the Divine. That using the phrase “The Fall” is an early Church misinterpretation (started by Methodius of Olympus in the 300’s CE, who was the first to coin the phrase “The Fall”).
Dwelling in Eden was to be a safe place for FLAWED NATURE … but God saw that the two realms (divine perfection and flawed nature) were just too incompatible.
What are your thoughts on this framework?
George
As a fellow music lover, I also find this image delightful. As for co composers, I would suggest the improvisation process. While limited in most of classical music, it is of course the heart of jazz. There are still composers who lay out the chords and general melody,but each performer in the ensemble takes a turn at interpreting (pun strongly intended) the theme. This might shift a bit too much of the divine creative effort into human hands, but maybe not. After all, God is the creator of nature, but perhaps our cities, airports, art galleries, laboratories, and even (to come full circle) concert halls are our improvised contributions to the natural order.
I just saw Jon’s post above about improvisation. On second thought, I think he is right, and despite all of our works, so is Bach. So please ignore the last sentence of the above…
I think that it makes good sense, George, certainly for the main target of BioLogos: young folks that have grown up in an evangelical Christian home and who are well versed in the Bible. The students in my class grew up in Catholic homes where bible reading was rather rare, and the bible readings at Mass were pre-selected. So my task was not so much to get them to re-interpret what they already were familiar with, but rather to greatly modify what they learned from a variety of sources. For some, this appeared to be too big a step.
Al Leo
1 Like