Is Science-Religion Conflict Always a Bad Thing? Some Augustinian Considerations | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
11

I hope I’m not out of place offering some defense of the author who doesn’t seem to be present here at the moment, since I thought this article did have much to commend.

It is interesting that different people (Johnz and PGarrison above) can read the same article and come to opposite conclusions about what the article asserts. Johnz sees in it an unmitigated acceptance of common descent and deep time. PGarrison, in contrast, sees the author calling into question well-established evolutionary theory. While I’m with you otherwise, PGarrison, I think Johnz may have you on this one —I just don’t see where this author is calling mainstream evolutionary theory into question --perhaps I misread your comment? But that said, I don’t follow Johnz to his conclusions that seem to dismiss any/all evolutionary evidence. (Problems that you bring up Johnz are repeatedly and well-addressed for any who care to look, beginning on this very site.)

I for one, appreciated this author’s distinction between “strong” and “weak” irenicism as it forced me to evaluate my own leaning towards the strong variety. So I am sensitive to Harrison’s critique of the weaknesses of that position. I do think he raises good points.

One point I took away from it is that there is that much “good questioning” (and by this I believe the author meant about the details of evolutionary mechanisms, PGarrison, not the question of whether any of it happened at all) that gets lost or shunned in the heat of polemics. Not all questioning (even among lay-audiences I might add) is motivated by a desire to preserve certain religious dogmas. And even if it was in part motivated by such considerations, it isn’t clear to me why this should demote the inquiry to some unworthy status, as if scientists themselves should be expected to be untainted by any motivations apart from some “pure objectivity” which is no more than a cultural fantasy about modern science in any case. For any who have in them at least that germ of sincere desire to labor for more accurate understandings, it is unfortunate that the omnipresent climate of conflict makes it less likely that any distinction is made on their behalf by those who may be in the best position to patiently address genuine curiosity.

12

Merv,

What I was responding to was this:

I was guessing, as noted, that the author was talking about fossil evidence, of which we could wish for much more. But if we do get at mechanism, it will have more to do with genetics than fossils, and there’s no shortage of that kind of evidence.

13

When I read some of the literature on genetics, what amuses me is the language of assumption. *“Their analysis can reveal their rich individual histories: how they arose, how they have been shaped by natural selection, and, often, how they perished. A comparison of the two most closely related available vertebrate genomes, those of human and mouse, already illuminates the contrasting fortunes of different genes. For some of these, the molecular clock of change ticks slowly, with few changes over tens of millions of years. For others, the pace of change is such that substantial genetic differences are evident even between different individuals of the same species.”

The reason I don’t trust the interpretations of the findings of genome comparisons, is that the interpretations are assumed before the genomes are analyzed. Evolution has done this with vestigial organs as well, by assuming that there are vestigial organs, thus attributing the characteristic to organs and appendages which are not well understood. Later we find these things are not vestigial at all, and that the evolution theory was in error as to fact as well as interpretation, and wrong in its assumptions.

Evolution was also wrong in its assumption of the similarities between human and ape genomes. It assumed the genomes would be close, and then ignored the significance of the differences. Inexorable science (not evolution theory) eventually discovered that there were far fewer non-functioning genes (junk DNA) than initially supposed, and eventually also revealed that the genomes were considerably different in size (chimp genome is 8% larger), which is a difference not included in the estimation of differences in the genomes. This leads to a similarity between humans and apes of about 87%(not 96%). In a study by Emes et al(2003), it was discovered that 80% of the genomes of mouse and humans had corresponding parts, and in genomic alignments, 40% of nucleotides are identical. If we compare both humans and chimps to this baseline of 80%, then the 87% similarity between chimps and humans becomes less significant… humans would be 20% different from mouse, and 13% different from chimps. This is mere numbers, and does not consider the actual significance or impact of the differences.

Everyone realizes that certain homologies are likely to be instigated by similar genomic characteristics, but evolution theory does not realize that this might be a foundation of construction not requiring evolutionary principles, but rather simple similarity of construction, just like all organic structures containing carbon as a basic building block. Similarity of genomes is not an evidence of evolution; it might merely correspond to a presumption of evolution, just as it corresponds equally well to a presumption of a common design or designer.

It is for these reasons that it seems that genetics will provide no more evidence of evolution than does the fossil record, and can just as easily appear to be evidence of the impossibility of evolution, based on the millions of base pair differences between genomes of different species.

14

P Garrison… you mention the pre-existing ideological commitment… which I observe applies to those who accept the theory of macro evolution as well. You mention there is no dispute among people actually doing research… which is somewhat true, since they claim not to dispute their assumptions of evolution. However, certainly, there are disputes about the science, since the initial claims of 99% similarity in the genome was later reduced to 96% by those doing the research. And there is no dispute that this number obscures the basic 8% difference in size of the genome, yet 87 or 88% is certainly different than 96% similarity. You may say there is no dispute, but that is semantics. When a similarity is posited, what is left unsaid is just as important, and it is in that where disputes are hidden.

When these differences are discovered and pointed out, it is not really generous on your part to suggest that this is illegitimate to point out. Research can be done in the lab, but much legitimate research is also done by reading research papers and synthesizing them. This is just as valid, and even more significant when it comes to dealing with the broader applications and interpretations of the scientific data. It would be incorrect to say that these people are not doing research.

15

Thanks for these comments Merv, which offer some useful clarifications of my argument. (The author is now present, with the day having begun in Australia.)

I’m certainly not trying to call into question well established elements of evolutionary theory, and thought I had stated that clearly enough. However, as you point out, there remain open questions about the relative importance of the mechanisms of evolution—natural selection, genetic drift, niche construction, extra-genetic inheritance, etc., and where one comes down on this may have significant implications for certain religious positions. More generally, of course, history suggests that all scientific theories change over time.

Returning to two of KGarrison’s points: First, about not equating scientia with modern science - yes that is exactly right, and it does have an important bearing on how relevant Augustine’s position is today. But discussion of this went well beyond what could be included in a brief blog. If you’re interested, much of my forthcoming book, The Territories of Science and Religion, discusses this very point. (It should be out from University of Chicago Press in the next few weeks).

Second, ‘if this is true, no Christian should be a scientist’. I’m not sure that this follows. The general point is that science itself needs to be located within a broader framework. If we value science, and I think we should, we could only do so by virtue of a set of values that is more fundamental than science itself. These values then, necessarily, are of more primary importance. To return to Augustine, one of his fundamental claims, against the Manichaeans, was the goodness of the created order, and hence of the importance of knowing something about it. But at the same time, he believed in a hierarchy of goods, with, crudely put, spiritual goods ranking above material goods.

16

I moved 7 posts to a new topic: Ecology and Natural Selection

17

@pharrison

I still have this issue of irenicism percolating, especially in light of recent exchanges I’ve had in other venues.

In a paragraph about your preference for the weaker variety, you wrote: "There are good reasons for thinking that strong irenicism has significant disadvantages, largely because science cannot be directly equated with ‘truths about the natural world’. "

I think my own attachment to the stronger irenicism may be somewhat reactionary against the stubborn persistence (a reactionism in its own right from the late nineteenth century) of so many modern Christians here in the U.S. as they willingly swallow a scientistic prescription for what truth must look like.

So when you write ‘… because science cannot be directly equated with truths about the natural world’, and in that you seem to be referring to the “mere” fact that science is fallible, I’m thinking even beyond … that the whole methodology(ies) of science are themselves philosophically incomplete at a deeper level. And as such there is a significant aspect of faith that is, not so much insulated from any empirical analysis, as beyond it in principle.

So do you fear re-opening an already stubbornly issue for so many by accepting what almost looks to be a softer concordism?

gotta go for now … may finish some of these thoughts later as I can.

18

Even though the article turned me off because of some of the terminology, it did get some things right, such as that science sometimes gets it wrong, that much of historical science (and evolution) is speculative, and that even well founded ideas are not demonstrative truth. Since Augustine was appealed to, I would like to add something from Augustine:

“> > Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.2”
"Furthermore, Augustine believed the genealogies given in Genesis to be literal chronologies and that the pre-Flood patriarchs lived to be around 900 years.3 He also stated, “Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.”(AIG) 2. Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press

19

johnZ - thanks for your helpful references to Augustine on creation. In the original blog post I wanted to draw out the contemporary relevance of some of Augustine’s general principles for relating religious truths to ‘scientific’ claims. But as you rightly point out, Augustine also has a very subtle position on the specific question of the emergence of living things. This could be the subject of its own post, but in light of your comments it’s worth giving a brief summary of Augustine’s views on this question, not least because your remarks might leave the wrong impression.

In On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis Augustine tried to resolve the tension between two competing ideas about the creation. On the one hand, the days of creation in Genesis 1 imply successive creations. However, a passage in Sirach 17.1 (in the doubtful Latin translation used by Augustine) suggests that God ‘created all things together [or ‘at once’]. This latter view was widely accepted by the Church Fathers and their medieval successors. However, Augustine sought to square this common view with the idea of temporal succession implied by the days of creation.

The fourth-century Greek Father Gregory of Nyssa had already provided a clue about how this might be done, proposing that ‘the sources, causes, and potencies of all things were collectively set forth in an instant’ yet, that at the same time ‘the necessary arrangement of nature required succession in the things coming into being.’ (Hexaemeron, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 44, col. 72). Augustine discovered a principle in Stoic thought that could provide a philosophical foundation for this suggestion. The principle in question was the idea of ‘causal reasons’ (rationes seminales), which is mentioned in one of the passages that you have helpfully cited. These were seed-like principles that would come to fruition at the right time. Augustine came to the view that: ‘All things were created by God in the beginning… but they could not develop and appear until the circumstances were favourable.’ (De Trinitate 3.9). This is why Augustine speaks (again in the passage that you have cited) of ‘the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers’. Simply put, at the moment of the original creation God implanted ‘seeds’ in the world that would subsequently develop at the appropriate time into the living things that we see around us. Augustine thus believed in both instantaneous creation and in organic development over time. In a sense, he believed in a kind of pre-determined evolution.

Ironically, Augustine’s ideas about the gradual emergence of living things were subsequently eclipsed when the Aristotle’s ideas about the fixity of species came to dominate medieval and early modern thought. These were only overturned with the advent of evolutionary thinking in the nineteenth century.

A very helpful account of Augustine’s views about this has been provided by the late Ernan McMullin, a wonderful historian and philosopher of science to whom I am very much indebted for much of the above. See his lecture ‘Evolution as a Christian Theme’, available here: http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/36443.pdf

20

I read Augustine as saying that the way things were created in the beginning, is not the way or by the processes which we presently observe. Paraphrasing: He says that God created everything quickly, not slowly, even though not in the numbers we presently observe (the laws of their numbers). He suggests that at the moment of creation, they were not subject to the processes of nature, but rather as the power of the wisdom, which does not reach by stages or steps. He spoke and they were made. This did not take place slowly that a slow development might be implanted, nor were ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. The laws the created animals received did not take a passage of time, did not take place slowly. The causal reasons (the laws of their behaviour and their capabilities) for the motion in creatures were implanted in them (in the creatures) at the moment of creation, which did not take place slowly.

It completely befuddles me how you can say that Augustine is suggesting the opposite of what he actually says.

21

@johnZ

I think the point that evolutionary creationists are making in their appeal to Augustine is that in his view, at 6 days long, creation did take place slowly! So Augustine felt (and responded to) a need to reconcile the so-called “plain” reading of Genesis 1 with the present philosophies of his time. So (and this is the point), Augustine did! That is he saw in Scripture a plausible interpretation that preserved a consistency with what was taken as the common knowledge of the time. A lesson that current-day evolutionary creationists think has been largely lost and merits consideration.

I give this reply, not because I’m any kind of Augustinian scholar, but as an exercise in clarifying for myself what I’ve learned recently from essays like this one. I trust pharrison will jump in to clean up any messes I’ve made.

22

Clarifying on my reply above … when Augustine took 6 days as happening “slowly”, that is in contrast to the obvious expectation that an omnipotent creator, (as God surely is), should be expected to create everything in an instant and without any need for rest. Hence the regard for a week as being insufferably long when such time is obviously not needed according to the wisdom of that day. So it isn’t a matter of allegedly showing that Augustine was making a bid for “deep time” and so advancing early evolutionary thought in any modern sense. That would be silly. The point of interest is that he was willing to part from a “plain” reading of Scripture at all when such was warranted by extra-biblical knowledge. That his time scale went in the opposite direction is irrelevant to that important point.

23

Merv, I understand what you are saying. But you have to look at Augustine’s contrast. He is contrasting God’s creation to the way we see things happening today. He is not saying in this passage that a day or even a week is a long time. He talks about stages and steps not being required. He says the ages were not established at the plodding pace at which they now pass. Creation did not take place slowly… why not ? there was no need for a slow development to be implanted. It seems clear to me that his reference to “slowly” is the “plodding pace at which they now pass”. I’m not sure it is a good argument to suggest that no passage of time means what you are suggesting; it could refer to the fact that on each day, when God created, the creation was instant, for that day. But I agree that Augustine is also making the point that the process of creation itself is not limited by the laws of biology or physics or time, since it created those laws outside of their control.

24

@pharrison

The ongoing research, discussions, and debates on Origins and Evolution continue to probe into their many layered mysteries. For many, the matter is pretty much a done deal—except for the penetrating specificities of the processes involved of course. And this is fine, since science ceaselessly probes ever deeper into the complex mysteries of nature. However, we must not be naive and believe that other pertinent areas of the science/faith paradigm have been overlooked. As you rightfully stated, “what if there are other examples that are less clear cut and that might offer alternative models of creative tension or outright conflict?” Investigation in these other areas of the science-religion conflict (psychology, criminology, judicial science) has also been meticulously explored and has similarly come to fruition. I agree that we must be prudent about the status of scientific knowledge. Your declaration that, “science changes and it changes in ways that suggest it cannot be invariably truth-tracking” is well noted, however, this was more of a significant factor in past centuries. Today scientific explanations are pretty much complete within their various domains, and although there is something more going on than science can detect, philosophic explanations are what remain as the pertinent constituents. Ethical and moral considerations are seriously investigated in the humanities and the relevant psychological factors are deliberated. With all due respect, this area of Augustine’s priorities are well accounted for.

In this regard many in scientific and religious circles will not accept any concord, complementary ideals, or even overlapping perspectives on the world. These typical “intellectuals” advocate that science and religion continue to occupy separate spheres of existence. For this reason, peaceful relations with these types (in both groups) will not produce what you call—“good” or “justifiable conflicts.” Alternatively, the other types (in both groups) have "a recognizable identity in science-religion discussions and have been labeled, often in pejorative terms, as “accommodationists” or “neo-harmonizers”—appropriately, they take the concordist or reconciliatory position to move the process forward. Hence the makeup of the feet and toes made of part iron and part clay—the statue of Daniel’s interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of succeeding world empires. The “stone,” cut without hands that strikes the statue on its feet made of part iron and part clay is none other than Jesus Christ who shatters the fragile bond holding together these two opposing forces and contradictory ideologies.

Therefore it should be said that both irenic positions have truth value: (1) The strong irenic position states that, “conflict between science and religion is impossible because there is only one ultimate truth about things, and if both science and religion are accessing this truth, conflict between them is not possible.” And (2) the weak irenic position confirms “that concord between science and religion has certainly been true for much of Western history, but that the peace between science and religion is more a matter of contingent historical circumstances. It is not that conflict is impossible for some set of principled reasons; it is just that the content of science for much of history past has just happened not to conflict with religion.” Having said that, if any discrepancies arise, through verifiable evidence and scientific reasoning false doctrine should be easily exposed. Professor Harrison has suggested that “potential science-religion conflicts need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.” Although, with all forthrightness—considering the increase in knowledge, and the times we live in—many science-religion conflicts are being made manifest collectively.

The declaration that, “… the weak irenic position might also prompt us to look closely at the details of current scientific claims, with the possibility that some aspects of a general theory might be religiously acceptable, but others not,” is to be forcefully advocated. This position would certainly provide the necessary frame of mind to ascertain that some religious claims are decidedly false. Some here, at BioLogos, would accordingly benefit and be convincingly enlightened if they only had an open mind instead of being rigidly dogmatic.

Alternatively, it is to be understood that, “Specifically in the case of evolutionary theory, the argument could be that while there is an undoubted scientific consensus about the truth of evolution it would not follow, of necessity, that Christian thinking must adapt itself to this reality. It would rather be a matter of considering the case on its merits, of scrutinizing every element of the theory and its variations, and of considering whether all or some or none were compatible with core Christian beliefs. (And from the assumption that there are “core” Christian beliefs it follows that some traditional doctrines may be dispensable.)” The truthfulness and openness of this blog post is to be commended in the highest degree—since many are willing to come forward with the facts.

Furthermore, I would like others to consider the opinion (for me it is fact) that the individual different sciences each operate on behalf of their own specific methodologies. As such, by default, they must abide by the structured hierarchical establishment of philosophic administrative protocol. This implies that if administrative protocol calls for biology to discuss evolution—specifically natural selection—in terms other than teleological, it must abide by this standard protocol. My point is that biology does not use teleological terms and definitions because teleology is a philosophical consideration. Thus, while many may be endlessly running around chasing their tails they should stop and consider the suggestion that biologists understand the veracity of teleology, however, professionally, they cannot discuss evolution in those terms.

And indeed, taking into account epigenetics and environmental mechanisms we move beyond the basic assumptions of neo-Darwinism and into a whole new field of inquiry. That epigenetics seems to strongly support a built-in teleology shouldn’t be viewed as being in opposition to neo-Darwinism. Instead, epigenetics should be treated as a distinct science specialized in the specific characteristics of a new field of evolution theory. Falk, Venema, Applegate, etc., must surely understand these categorical considerations?

Moreover, concerns about the apparent randomness and directionlessness of evolutionary processes are baseless taking into account stochastic considerations directed by the internal environment and the external ecological processes influencing these changes.

Professor Harrison, is this not an example of what your suggesting here?—That, "Some scientific theories claim empirical adequacy rather than “truth.”

Finally, Van Fraassen’s statement “To present a theory is to specify a family of structures, its models; and secondly, to specify certain parts of those models (the empirical substructures) as candidates for the direct representation of observable phenomena,” is pertinent here. (Van Fraassen - 1980, 64) Considerations regarding the hierarchical establishment of the philosophic administration, and, its direction and management of the structured scientific community, provides a “God’s Eye” view from the establishment’s nerve center. My theory is that the answers and evidence to our deepest metaphysical questions lie here—in the Administrative Faculty of the University—waiting for the right moment to be disclosed.

25

@pharrison

I appreciate the reference to Augustine (and indeed previous theologians) who endeavoured to articulate the attribute of God as Creator. My reading is that in order to ensure we understood God is not subject to time (or the creation, in current terminology to include time and space, and all therein) Augustine indicates “instantaneous” as another way of saying “independent of what we know as time”.

I am intrigued by “seeds” used as some type of analogy in the time-independent acts of creation - I also find Gen1 to appear as if the writer is using the normal meaning of day - I suggest this was not to limit God to a timetable, nor to place an obvious contradiction (no sun, yet we have days). My take is the importance of showing what the Sabbath meant, and what “resting” and “worship” were intended to be for Israel and now for the Church.

26

Johnz, Personally I remained non-committed on evolution for 20 years after I finished a Ph.D. in biochemistry (and was doing research.) I was raised in fundamentalism, although no big deal was made about evolution. I don’t think I had any idealogical commitment - I was just curious to see how it turned out. It was the results of genomic sequencing that settled the matter for me. I didn’t do genomic sequencing in my research, but I did plenty of analyzing sequences, genetic engineering of yeast (I helped map a physically map a gene on a yeast chromosome just in time to see the chromosome be the first eukaryotic chromosome sequenced) (by the yeast project,) and during a long collaboration with cancer researchers I read a lot of papers on human genomics.

The question of how similar the human and chimp genomes are has been the subject of some serious obscurantism by the anti-evolution folks. There are significant tracts where there are large numbers of repeats, and it is hard to tell which repeats should be lined up with each other - so they say that it all doesn’t align. In fact it can be aligned in a lot of different ways - it’s just hard to tell which one is the best.

It does matter whether you are involved in research in a given area. You know the methods and what their limitations are. You hear countless seminars read thousands of papers over many years and that makes a big difference in being able to interpret and be critical of them. And it’s not just in grad school that you get better at it. I had a lot more sense of how to interpret results 20 years out of grad school than I did when I got my Ph.D.

It’s not a simple matter of similarities in genomes. It’s the specific nature of those similarities - in many cases we have a very good idea how a particular kind of sequence comes about - they have typical features that identify the kind of event that produced them. And it’s also the huge number of similarities - many millions, and the fact that most of them don’t just occur in the genomes of two species but multiple species in a pattern of presence and absence that fits the phylogeny.

There is an essay I wrote on the transposon evidence with a figure made in one of the genome browsers here: The Art of the Soluble: Transposable Elements and Common Descent of Humans and other Primates

There is another post there on the Out of Africa story and the Y chromosome and mtDNA evidence.

27

Thanks to all for your responses. Here are few further brief comments, trying to pick up on a some of the ideas put forward by various respondents.

JohnZ. On the issue of how to read Augustine on instantaneous vs protracted creation, don’t take my word for it. Just read any of the introductions to English translations of Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram. Or google ‘Augustine seminal reasons’.

Also, as Merv suggests, the point is not to try to make Augustine a precocious evolutionist, but to show that, historically, Christians have read Genesis in a variety of ways, responding to the two creations stories in Genesis, as well as contemporary philosophical understandings of the origins and development of life.

On the ‘days’ of Genesis 1, one possibility, noted by GJDS, relates this to the idea of sabbath. Again, it’s worth reading what biblical scholars have to say about this.

Finally, Augustine’s reference to ‘seminal (or causal) reasons’ and number (a nod in the direction of one of his favourite passages in Wisdom 11.21, according to which God created everything in number, weight, and measure) suggests the use of what we would call secondary causes in the processes of creation.

28

Agree that God is not subject to time nor to the laws he created in creation. About “the normal meaning of the day”… created by genesis, or was genesis subject or limited to the normal meaning? Genesis was not written to show what the Sabbath meant. The Sabbath came out of Genesis… Genesis did not come out of the Sabbath. If Genesis is fiction, then even the historical basis for the Sabbath loses its kick.

29

Preston, congrats on your gene sequencing projects. No one is contesting the similarities in genomes. It is the tendency to over estimate the similarities that demonstrates an inherent bias. If a similarity is not obvious, then in terms of gene sequencing, there is obviously not an obvious similarity. Perhaps there could be a contrived similarity, but like the fingers of a frog compared to fingers of mammals the similarity is belied because of the different way the similarity is produced. The original similarity estimate was 99%. Then the similarity devolved to 96.5%. But the size difference increases the disimilarity by another 8%. So there is still lots of similarity… perhaps 87%. Although some would argue the actual similarity when all factors are connsidered, is about 70%. Still lots of similarities even at 70%. But also lots of differences. Hundreds of millions of base pair differences. Not a small number.

When you get wrapped up in the detailed research, sometimes the bigger picture is lost.

Your article indicated that the more closely related some species are, the more likely their transposons will be located in the same place in the genome. Sure, but that’s kind of circular reasoning if the the affect of the inserted transposons has the same impact. We expect the genome to impact the homology and physiology of the organism. Different locations of transposons in the genome seem to lead to genetic diseases you imply. So the location of transposon is essential to the existence and survival. Of course it has to be in the same or similar location. Just like all animals need protein and vitamins and energy to grow and survive, they need transposons in particular locations for their identity to be expressed.

30

Peter H, I think I have said what I want to say about Augustine and his explanation of creation. I don’t want to keep repeating myself. I realize and never thought otherwise that no evolutionist is trying to turn Augustine into an evolutionist. I have no comment on causal reasons and number - it’s significance seems contrived but of course, physical reality will be measureable.

I do want to mention however, that the common perception of two creation stories in Genesis is incorrect. It is the same story told with two different levels of detail. This often happens in scripture, including in the pentateuch, but also in Joshua and Judges. (and also in the gospels.) Same story - different angles.