God's use of natural laws & the Western scientific tradition

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

Christy, you know the evangelical/fundamentalist/literalist culture of America very well. You know how the vast majority of your readers will take the statement:

That’s not super relevant seeing that you are 70+ posts in and are having a conversation with one person, and this imagined audience is most likely indeed imaginary. If the person you are having the conversation with defined their terms, and their definition isn’t unprecedented and idiosyncratic (in this case, BioLogos has used similar terminology, hence the “evolutionary creationist” label, as was pointed out), you can’t tell them they aren’t allowed to use the term because there is an off-chance that a random uninformed lurker popping in, might just read one post not the whole conversation and might mischaracterize your position and your anonymous reputation will be damaged. That is ridiculous.

@Eddie

And it’s not just about me. The usual charge against Discovery is that it is a creationist organization in the narrow sense – in the sense of Ross and/or Ham.

Last time you tried to convince me that their website was not promoting creationist rhetoric and propaganda, you were unsuccessful, Eddie, and I’m not going to waste any more of my time pointing out to you examples of what is plain and obvious to anyone who spends any time reading evolution news and views. It is Discovery Institute’s own fault that they are lumped in with Ham and Ross because of what they publish on their website, it’s not because mean people on BioLogos misrepresent them. Though maybe that happens occasionally. Mean people misrepresent BioLoogs on other websites sometimes too. It’s a fallen world.

@Eddie

Mr. Burke has, by a set of associations in his recent posts, linked up in the readers’ mind “Discovery”, “ID”, “Denton”, “intellectual dishonesty” “denying macroevolution” “denying common descent”, and “creationism”, and framed all of this in a very negative way. I can’t read his posts without feeling a very strong hostility to Discovery and ID and a moderate hostility to Denton. I suspect that you can detect this hostility as well.

Sure. People who say one thing (We have nothing to do with Creationism) and then do another (litter their website with the exact same Creationist-flavor propaganda designed to create in readers a distrust and rejection of mainstream science and to promote the idea that evolution is a theory in crisis) tend to elicit that kind of reaction because people resent hypocrisy. (Or better, what may look like hypocrisy to someone not as informed and well-read as you are on this issue.)

You are the greatest apologist for ID the BioLogos world has ever seen. But it is totally unrealistic of you to expect that everyone needs to accept or at least humor your personal assessment of ID every time it comes up in conversation. People are allowed to form their own opinions, and as much as you dislike the idea, a lot of those opinions are formed reading the material they themselves put out there, not “unfair characterizations” here.

You know how most conversations here get derailed? People start arguing about how someone else should have or should not have said something, or how the tone someone else said something in could only be interpreted as this or that, and how that is offensive because of X and Y. Please. This is not couples’ therapy. How about we try to stick to the content of what was communicated and not over-react when other people don’t say things as perfectly as we would in their place.

(After typing all this out, I looked to the bottom of the thread and saw that you had already listened to me. So I debated just deleting the whole thing. But that would mean I just wasted 20 minutes, so I guess I’ll post it anyway. In any case, I’m very proud of you both. )

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

Thank you very much Christy. To return to the point of the original article, God consistently uses natural laws to bring about His purpose. Evolutionary creationism fits well within God’s typical method of acting within His creation.

[Jo_Helen_Cox]

FINALLY! We end another Eddie rant to get back to the interesting part of the thread.

Loved your thesis. AGREE so much, with lots of hearts.

@Jonathan_Burke

I see God as external to the universe, not inside it and part of it.

The concept that God is “outside” never seamed to be presented adequately in scripture to me. It was more like an theological excuse to say He wasn’t personal. However, biblically He is always with us. He always knows what is going on. He is always in control, of nature and civilizations. He does not force people to recognize His constant presence, but He is never far away.

I read years ago that a Medieval Rabbi said that instead of the world being separated from God, the world was inside God. He is both outside and inside the universe, but He is not part of creation. We can never get away from something we are inside. (Can anyone tell me who that Rabbi was?)

@Jonathan_Burke

Naturally I am not denying that God could and does suspend those natural laws when He chooses.

The question, “Can God break His natural laws?” has been around since humans started realizing there were natural laws. I think He could if He wanted, but His miracles are not magical, since He rejected magic in Mosaic Laws. People call anything they don’t understand magic or miracle or supernatural, these being indistinguishable except by their source (magician or prophet or spirit).

I think the biblical miracles can be described naturally. God knows more about how our cells work than we do. He could heal blindness by telling the cells to reproduce correctly. Even resurrection is not breaking a natural law if God tells the cells to function again and returns the soul of the person. It is we that do not know how to do these things naturally, not God. Hum, just thinking that humans are starting to learn how to repair blind eyes and do some really funky things with cells. We may be on the way to learn the nature of these things. Cool.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“Eddie, post:65, topic:4380”]
But you do need expertise in evolutionary biology in order to determine whether the particular piece of tertiary literature you are relying upon is a fair summary of the field, or an incomplete, biased, or intellectually incompetent summary.[/quote]
Hello Eddie,

I’m confused by what you wrote. What is your expertise in evolutionary biology? I ask because you only tout pieces of tertiary literature AFAIK.

Otherwise you are simply accepting that particular piece of tertiary literature on faith.

What underlying expertise supports your relentless touting of Denton’s tertiary literature, then?

Some IDers misrepresent the literature. Not all. Denton does not misrepresent it. Read his third book.

Wouldn’t YOU need an intimate familiarity with the primary and secondary literature to make such a claim in good faith?

And why should we only read Denton’s third book? Do you understand evolutionary theory well enough to see the false presentation of evolutionary theory underlying Denton’s FIRST book?

So the most you can say is that Denton chose a bad title for his new book.

Or a deliberately misleading one.

[quote]Nonsense. Coyne works in the field, and he grossly misrepresents evolutionary theory in a one-sided neo-Darwinian manner, omitting, downplaying, or sneering at non-Darwinian interpretations of evolution by competent evolutionary theorists at major universities. He doesn’t give a balanced portrait of the field.
[/quote]What expertise informs your claims that a non-evolutionary biologist accurately represents the field in his tertiary work, while Coyne does not provide a balanced portrait?

Eddie, it appears to me that your intent here is to sow confusion, not to clarify.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Christy

That’s not super relevant seeing that you are 70+ posts in and are having a conversation with one person, and this imagined audience is most likely indeed imaginary.

Hey! I must say that I have been entertained by Eddie’s self-contradictory rants.

Apologies for my post, but I hadn’t refreshed the page either until I posted.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

I have never asked that people accept my “assessment” of ID…

Christy is pointing out that when people criticize what the Discovery Institute says, you frequently claim that they actually mean something very different to what is being criticized. But what you claim they mean is typically very unrelated to what most people read them as saying very clearly. Your own “assessment of ID” appears idiosyncratic and quite different from what they are saying and from their very obvious agenda.

@Eddie

My repeated refrain has been: “Don’t impute words or ideas to ID people or organizations that they have not themselves expressed; and even more, don’t impute words or ideas to ID people or organizations that they have expressly denied.”

And that’s fine, but in actual fact you go well beyond that. You interpret them in a consistently apologetic way, which often attributes to them meaning which is obviously distant from their own intention. When they speak of nature and humans being created in the image of God, and you try to deny that they are creationist, it’s clear your motive is apologetics rather than clarification.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

No, not at all. I’ve already given a more than sufficient explanation of why those particular statements should not be denoted as “creationist.”

It isn’t sufficient, it’s an apologetic explanation. If they don’t want to be called creationists then they should stop talking about God creating nature and humans.

@Eddie

And I have objected to it because, whatever you might mean by “creationism,” many others will take that word to mean something much narrower than, and different in crucial ways from, what you mean.

But you haven’t provided any evidence for this. Christy has already addressed this as well. It doesn’t matter how much you cite “the actual meaning of “creationism” in American popular debates”, the fact is that among Christians in North America, the term does not have an exclusively narrow meaning. It has a very broad meaning, which is why Christians define their views as not merely “creationist”, but Young Earth Creationist, Old Earth Creationist, and Evolutionary Creationist, whilst still all calling themselves creationists. Greater specificity is required precisely because the term is understood broadly, not narrowly.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

I did not say that the term “creationism” has an “exclusively narrow meaning.”

Thank you. That wasn’t clear from statements like “you are asking readers to temporarily suspend their normal usage of a term in order to understand you”, and “Jon has said he is using his own idiosyncratic definitions”, and “It is ridiculous for Jon to suppose that in the very short time he has been posting here, that the thousands of BioLogos readers have done a complete about-face in the way they interpret these words”, and “many others will take that word to mean something much narrower than, and different in crucial ways from, what you mean”. So there’s no problem.

@Eddie

There is massive evidence that I am describing common usage correctly.

You’re supposed to be providing massive evidence that people involved in this thread are going to misunderstand what I have written. As Christy has rightly said, “this imagined audience is most likely indeed imaginary”.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Jo_Helen_Cox

Loved your thesis. AGREE so much, with lots of hearts.

Thank you Jo.

@Jo_Helen_Cox

The concept that God is “outside” never seamed to be presented adequately in scripture to me. It was more like an theological excuse to say He wasn’t personal. However, biblically He is always with us. He always knows what is going on. He is always in control, of nature and civilizations. He does not force people to recognize His constant presence, but He is never far away.

I agree with this, and what I mean by “outside” the universe is that He is not a part of it. He existed before it did, and He is not made of the same “stuff” it’s made of. I agree He permeates it, and He is everywhere present, without being part of the universe.

@Jo_Helen_Cox

I think the biblical miracles can be described naturally.

Insofar as we can propose a “supra-set” of natural laws operating above and beyond the ones we know (and which are accessible to us), that’s entirely possible. I’m just not sure if that’s what’s happening here. For the sake of the argument, the writers of the Bible seem to think miracles are by definition a suspension of the natural order.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Eddie I have made it very clear which version of evolution you reject, and the reason why I call you a creationist the same way I call myself a creationist.

@Jonathan_Burke

I see no benefit to be gained by your use of the term “Creationist” - - in the way you are using it. It only muddies the waters.

If you want to do some good, start using a more nuanced label: “ID Evolutionist”.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@gbrooks9

I see no benefit to be gained by your use of the term “Creationist” - - in the way you are using it. It only muddies the waters.

I use it to speak of anyone who believes God created. That includes me.

@gbrooks9

If you want to do some good, start using a more nuanced label: “ID Evolutionist”.

I don’t know what it means.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

On the other hand, some of the comments made on this site (usually mostly by commenters, but on occasion also by columnists or even management, especially in earlier years) about Discovery, Denton, Behe, etc. have not tried to be fair.

I was, in the past when we have had this discussion and now, specifically talking about the content promoted on Evolution News and Views. I understand that is not that the sum total of Discovery, and I have never claimed as much. I have never made any evaluation of any person who you claim represents ID leadership. We disagree about what a fair assessment of the content of that website is. I do not think the entire ID movement is a bunch of hypocrites and in fact I have many friends and loved-ones who are closely aligned with it and they are fine people and sincere Christians. I think there is an aspect of hypocrisy in the repeated claim that ID is not religious and the kind of content they push on Evolution News and Views, which appears to me to be intentionally crafted to play into and reinforce the existing assumptions and biases of a religious Creationist (more common usage) audience. That’s all. It’s not name calling, it’s a subjective assessment. I don’t really see how that is a reckless claim, but fine. You don’t have to prove to me it is and I’m not going to defend it because I am clearly not the only one who has walked away with the same impression.

@Eddie

“Denton appeals to the micro/macro distinction in an intellectually dishonest way,” uncharitably imputes bad motivation, and invites indignant retorts. The latter sort of statement should be avoided. But I have not been able to succeed in getting everyone to agree that the latter sort of statement should be avoided. Well, so be it.

Maybe. But when I hear that expression I think of it as an assessment of a person’s reasoning and logic, not as a character assessment. It’s not that they are being dishonest with other people and trying to deceive so much as they are not being honest with themselves about their own intellectual blind spots.

Anyway, back to the discussion.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

Behe and Denton would be “ID evolutionists,” whereas Dembski and Meyer would be “ID creationists”

Thank you, that is most telling.

[beaglelady]

@benkirk

And why should we only read Denton’s third book? Do you understand evolutionary theory well enough to see the false presentation of evolutionary theory underlying Denton’s FIRST book?

Don’t feel bad. He’s been trying to stuff Suzan Mazur’s book up my nose and down my pants for 2 years now.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jonathan_Burke

I use it to speak of anyone who believes God created. That includes me.

Jonathan, one of the things we can actually ACCOMPLISH here at BioLogos is the dissemination of vocabulary that UNIFIES and CONSOLIDATES… instead of a repeat of decades where people quibble over an endless sequence of terms.

Calling a BioLogos supporter a “Creationist”, especially if it is based on some private or personal definition, does NOBODY any good.

Help promote the UNITY of the BioLogos position. @Eddie Eddie and I have agreed to “ID Evolutionist”. I see no reason why (so far) why you should avoid the term.