I agree that wording can more than influence results … I would press on to add that it can make survey results nearly worthless.
It’s kind of like asking people on a survey: do you think that it was a motor vehicle that brought that person to the market? Or was it a driver’s plan or volition that brought him there? The materialists look into it and say “we see the car, but our professional instruments show us nothing of wills or volitions, so it is 100% car.” Would we then conclude that those who answered in such a way don’t believe there are such things as people who plan to visit the market?
Thank you for the reference - this does seem like it could be a fun read.
Even just these short quotes could support a discussion on various details but we can focus on the aspects you highlighted. I agree that the distinction between “fittest” and “most stable” seems more akin to different types of fitness rather than a different concept. On the utilization of “fortuitous”, it seems to me like it’s more of stylistic choice to help the text flow better - likely the intended meaning is such that you could substitute “stochastically unlikely” for “fortuitous” in this quote.
The “arrow of complexity hypothesis” certainly sounds like an interesting possibility to consider but note that it is framed as an “emergent process” rather than as teleological / indicative of an underlying purpose. That said, I can certainly see how even a limited scientific “arrow of complexity” model could lend itself to nice teleological interpretations, even if the model itself is not likely to require it or directly imply it.
And definitely the links between genotype and phenotype are anything but straightforward. Anyone claiming otherwise or denying the influence of cellular state and environment in observed phenotypes will have an impossible amount of biological evidence to struggle with.
The inability of science to have perfect knowledge of all the conditions influencing the outcome of our observations will always lead scientists (and certainly biologists, in particular) to model certain events as “random”. However, it is important to remember that science is founded on the fundamental assumption that the natural world can be explained if we find the right laws and are able to measure the relevant data. I would thus hesitate to ascribe “true randomness” (rather than “stocahstic”) intentions to scientific utilization of the term “random” unless the context makes it explicitly clear that this is what they mean (e.g., as in the case of the Bell test experiments in quantum mechanics).
I am not sure what prompted your quote above, but I assume it refers to Genesis 2 and Original Sin. If so, Patrick, you can be sure that I have questioned the Truth of this story for a longer time than you have, and no amount of exegesis or hermeneutics can make it true for me. But it is reasonable to believe the story was truthful when first expressed some 40K years ago when our Homo sapiens ancestor’s brains were transformed into minds and when God offered to make them co-creators with Him. This story had to be transmitted orally for perhaps 2,000 generations before writing was invented, during which time some of the transmitters came under the influence of people who believed in tribal gods–gods who experienced human-like emotions of jealousy, rage, and being insecure of their power.
So, like the parlor game of a whispered message passed around a circle of participants until it returned quite garbled, the original Truth became corrupted. God’s offer to let humans become co-creators was twisted into the idea that “the knowledge of good and evil” would threaten godly power and would warrant severe punishment. That garbled message was received in the time of Abraham and Moses and was written down a few centuries BC; e.g. Decalog: “For I, your God, am a jealous God.” And the ziggurats built by the Babylonians for astronomical observations were considered an abomination–humans trying to become gods.
As you surely realize, Patrick, my interpretation (?) of the old Testament is not looked on favorably by those who operate this BioLogos site. It probably is NOT the best way of reaching their primary target: young folks well grounded in Scripture, who are uneasy when faced with evolution being taught in their science classes. But for you, Patrick, and for so many of my European colleagues, raised Catholic but turned atheist, something should be offered that is now lacking. The above scenario allowed me to retain the core of my Faith and avoid hypocrisy–or so I hope!
Be honest, does it make good sense to you? Did you read my “Panel Truck” story I related in response to Kathryn Applegate earlier blog?
Al Leo
Much the same way that a good conductor gets the most out of his/her orchestra or a good teacher imparts good learning to her/his students.
God has so many tools at God’s disposal, it is a shame and an insult God to limit God to one, absolute necessity, particularly when God is not Absolute, but Relational. I have given you the answer, but you do not want to hear that which goes against your own bias.
God does not do things the easy way or the sure way. God does things the right way.
Al,
Your interpretation of the story kinda makes sense to me with 2015 knowledge. But that is not how the story was told to me at a young age. In the 1960’s it wasn’t fruit from the tree of knowledge, it was an apple tree with a talking snake in it. I was told by nuns that the story was an allegory, which I learned years later was a fancy name for a myth. I learned as a child that Catholic Catechism was far more important than biblical understanding, that dogma and doctrine were much more important than truth. You describe me as being raised Catholic and turning atheist. It would probably be more accurate to say that I was always agnostic and grow more agnostic and less cultural Catholic with time. I agree with you that something should be offered that is now lacking. But I haven’t seen anything in the past 30 years why being a practicing Catholic does anything to enrich my life and my family’s lives or adds to the purpose and meaning of my life or improves on the lives of others. I use to admire Catholic charities. But these have grown into full fledged megacorporations. So I prefer secular and even atheist charities over these Catholic mega corps.
Patrick, you did not say if you read my ‘miracle story’ about the panel truck. I think you are much like my friend, Eric, who felt like Christianity could add little or nothing to the purpose and happiness in HIS life. As an agnostic, he was a fine human being, and I believe the message on the truck said that God thought so, too. But some people DO find that a relationship with a Higher Power gives them more happiness and purpose than a life denying that such a Power exists. Eric’s wife and kids had the former kind of belief, and Eric’s relationship with them was much smoother after he rid himself of a hidden resentment of that fact.
I am sure that I am as skeptical a person as you are, Patrick. I seriously consider Doubting Thomas as my patron saint. But, perhaps by pure accident, I have had experiences that convinced me that there is some other-worldly Power in charge that wants to be my friend. Sounds weird, doesn’t it. Something queer, like handling rattlesnakes to prove one’s faith. I didn’t arrive at that conclusion by reading Scripture or by Church Dogma or the Lives of the Saints. But it sure makes my life joyful and pleasant, even when my beloved and I are growing more and more decrepit and nearing the end of our stay on this wondrous planet Earth.
Al Leo
Thanks for your response. I think I have said sufficient to support my overall outlook, which is that ND evolution, albeit is the current paradigm for evolutionary biology, cannot be considered as “settled science” in the normal way such a phrase is used amongst scientist. I do not have a problem with speculation, debates and a variety of views in any discipline of the physical sciences - however I do not put as much weight to ND wrt my theological faith based outlook and beliefs, as I do on other areas of the sciences. I agree with you broadly that there is much to discover and understand in the biological sciences and feel that those working in this area would find it an exciting time.
Theologically, I rely on what I understand is settled science, and particularly the intelligibility of nature, the unique aspects of the human spirit, and matters such as the constants in science and the inevitability of the universe from its beginning. Thus my points made in my initial post as “non-negotiable”.
I advise you not to take Patrick’s ill-advised statement as fact. The apparent present conclusions about human dna is that it contains some neanderthal dna as well, although not much. Of course, conclusions such as these are subject to likely change and reinterpretation, and so are quite inconclusive. Interesting how we just want to make the easier assumption… whatever it may be at the time. That would be quite the scientific method, wouldn’t it.
So, interesting analogy. The orchestra kind of just pops up by itself, with no help from God, and then God steps in to this orchestra, which he may or may not have created, to give them musical notes to follow, to encourage members to play well, scold them when they miss a note, fine them when they are late for rehearsal., etc. With such an analogy, are we to assume then that it is the giving of the notes, the musical pieces to which your analogy refers, and thus they end up playing only one masterpiece together, rather than a discordant mess of 20 simultaneous but different musical pieces? This kind of direction, eliminating 99% of possibilities from the outset, and finetuning the playing of the directed piece, is nothing close to the theory of evolution. This type of development could lead to all the different species in much, much fewer than 3.5 bill yrs, and includes the possibility of a six day creation. After all, what is the difference between a directed outcome of millions or thousands of years?
This is true, but meaningless, since the right way could be easy, or sure, or hard, or uncertain. Whatever way God does things, is right, by definition.
[1] Someone could believe in 100% reductionistic determinism … and still consider genetic drift to be “an accident” - - in other words, no one INTENDED it.
[2] Someone could believe that in addition to genetic drift, the internal dynamic or logic of natural selection is NOT ACCIDENTAL. I understand why
they want to define non-random or non-accidental that way - - it gives them something to argue against some ID camps.
[3] And finally, while I don’t know anyone specifically who holds this third view - - there is probably SOMEONE, right? "God has general plans or intentions…
but allows nature a certain measure of chaotic play or uncaused randomness. I think this is a bunko position - - but that almost certainly guarantees that
SOMEONE holds it.