Joshua and Cornelius get to know each other

Faith & Science Conversation
16

Okay, if you mean Dawkins and Darwinism by “evolutionary thought”, I certainly agree with you. That is just philosophical atheism with a fig leaf of science.

So that means I probably misread you. You are not saying that theistic evolution (TE) is incompatible with the Bible. Rather, you are saying that atheism (e.g. Dawkins and “evolutionary thought”) is incompatible with the Bible. I think all of us agree with you here. It would be hard to imagine anyone who didn’t.

But evolution, as we at BioLogos understand it, and is understood by my scientific colleagues, is just the scientific theory of common descent. This theory does not deny God, but is silent about His involvement.

I don’t think you understand my position. I do not believe in fully naturalistic origins. I think God created us. He designed us all. I am not a naturalist.

I think the core of the confusion between us is that you conflate “evolution” with “naturalism”. I do not. These are different things.

3 Likes
17

@Cornelius_Hunter

You still haven’t explained where all the millions of species came from … if they didn’t evolve over millions of years…

18

Cornelius, you’re not doing any science. That speaks volumes.

2 Likes
19

So touched by the charity you and a few others have shown.

20

To put this a more directly (without the double negative). You think…

CD could be compatible with the Bible. And God working by secondary causes is not a problem either.

Well, that is real common ground. And I will take it. We agree here. In fact, a person that believes this is a theistic evolutionist. Evolution is just common descent, and it tends to emphasize secondary causes. And this version of theistic evolution you believe is consistent with the BIble. Great. That is the type of theistic evolutionist I am. And also the type that NT Wright is also.

But then you go on oddly (to me) to write about Wright, who himself is a theistic evolutionist like us. What exactly do you mean by “evolutionary thought”? Can you put it in your own words? And at what point to do you disagree with NT Wright? He is a theistic evolutionist after all.

I suspect you have an idiosyncratic definition of “evolutionary thought.” I also suspect that I might agree that the Cornelius version of “evolutionary thought” is a bad thing, but I would probably give a different label (maybe “epicurianism” or “dawkinism”?).

Clearly, what every NT Wright means by this does not preclude him from being a theistic evolutionist. My guess is that we at BioLogos are in his camp too (in your categorization of the world).

And to reiterate. I do not believe in naturalistic origins. So tell me again how “religion” drives my science?

I think it does, of course, but not in the way you think…

You think I reject non-naturalistic mechanisms in our origins. I do not. So try again.

1 Like
21

No I’m not confusing them. You haven’t shown any evidence for the “scientific failure of naturalism”, and all you have done is expressed your incredulity that evolution could have taken place.

No I don’t think that. I believe you reject evolution as a result of your theological convictions.

But on what grounds do you say we have no evidence? You keep making claims without substantiating them. Again, where is all the evidence for the alleged obvious scientific failures of naturalism? Has it failed to explain where rain comes from, or how snowflakes are formed? Has it failed to explain the origin of volcanoes and how magnets work? Where are all the failures?

It’s just like ID. Claims are made without any evidence. In the case of ID, saying “Evolution could not have taken place because these artifacts we’ve found are far too complex to have evolved” is not an argument proceeding from the position “This is the evidence presented in favour of evolution, this is my assessment of it, and this is why I believe it falls short”, it’s just a blanket statement without substantiation.

2 Likes
22

I’ve been reading Cornelius’ blog. A couple of themes stand out. This one.

  • This, in a nutshell, is Epicureanism
  • this new brand of Epicureanism
  • Evolution is nothing more than our modern-day Epicureanism, and it is pathetic
  • he is a modern-day Epicurean
  • their Epicurean theory
  • his fellow Epicurean

And this.

  • Not only are Stringer and the evolutionists driven by religious sentiment
  • The whole idea behind the evolution mythology
  • Evolutionists must tell these lies
  • Evolution isn’t about the science—it never was
  • Evolutionists want so badly for evolution to be true they will pervert science to make their case
  • These are ridiculous pseudo science lies
  • It is complete gibberish
1 Like
23

I’ll stay current, and just quote you from this thread: For example, regarding (Barbosa-Morais, et. al., 2012) you wrote: “To be clear, this data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent."

24

Because there is no peer reviewed paper that shows that evolution is a fact, yet that is the continual claim. They’re saying it is a fact that the species, and everything else for that matter, arose by chance + simple laws. That is no different than what the Epicureans claimed.

25

How exactly is that religion? That is my scientific interpretation of the data based on the known models people have proposed.

Notice, I did not say that there is no model (other than CD) that could possibly explain this data. Rather, I think there is no known model. Maybe you have one. We keep asking for it. But none of us know of a model that explains this data except CD.

And maybe we are wrong. Maybe there is a model out there. But we need to see it before we reject CD and accept it instead. This is how science works.

How exactly is this religion driving my science? Surely you do not think I am an epicurean. I think we have the same religion Cornelius. We both are followers of Jesus, or so I assume.

4 Likes
26

Because it is a claim about God. That makes it religious.

27

@Cornelius_Hunter,

If you read the BioLogos mission statement … I don’t believe you will find anything like that claim here!!!

28

This is especially interesting, since science often works by considering competing models - as a non-biologists, my interest, regarding non-competing claims/models, peaks, as it may be an indication of a dogmatic position re the science.

29

Hello Dr. Hunter,

I hope that your spirit has been refreshed on this Lord’s Day.

I think you caught only half of what N.T. Wright said about evolution. You accurately quote what he says about the way that many (e.g., Richard Dawkins) have infused evolution with the mission of disproving God’s providential involvement with creation. However, you are very much confused when you claim that the theory of evolution is our modern day Epicureanism. This is exactly the opposite of what N.T. Wright claims.

Here are some key points about evolution N.T. Wright makes in Surprised by Scripture:

(1) Epicureans try to use the theory of evolution to dispel our trust in God’s providential involvement with us. Wright calls this effort “Evolutionism-with-a-capital-E” to distinguish it from the scientific theory that common descent is the best explanation for a large body of evidence.

The cross is, and Jesus always said it was, the subversion of all human power systems. The cross is the central thing that demonstrates the impossibility of the metaphysically inflated Evolution-with-a-capital-E. [original emphasis]

(2) We must reject the Epicurean stance that tries to force us to choose between two supposed opposites: (1) believing God directly intervened, vs. (2) it all just happened without any involvement by God.

Just because we observe evolution, that doesn’t mean there can’t be a god who is active within that process as well as beyond and above it. … Science by itself doesn’t force you to be an Epicurean. The God of the Bible and the processes of his creation do not constitute a zero-sum game, as so many in our culture still assume.

Note that Wright states that “we observe evolution.” Yes, he is affirming that it is appropriate to speak of the lower-e theory of evolution as a process that has been observed by science.

And he affirms that Epicureanism is something that stands apart from evolution itself (“Science by itself doesn’t force you to be an Epicurean”).

(3) Our confrontation with the theory of evolution provides us with an opportunity to correct an implicit Epicureanism that has crept into our own theology. Just as we can rescue the valid science of lower-e evolutionary theory from the fangs of neo-Epicureans like Dawkins, we can rescue our own theology from an implicit Epicureanism that depicts the kingdom of heaven as something that has no involvement or continuity with our earthly lives.

I think what has happened is this. The neo-Epicurean teaching of which we are all aware, the capital-E Evolutionism that has produced a metaphysical inflation from a proven hypothesis about the physical world to a naturalistic worldview–this modernist teaching has exposed a flank that perhaps needed exposing. … The Bible is not about the rescue of humans from the world but about the rescue of humans for the world, and indeed God’s rescue of the world by means of those rescued humans.

Note that Wright calls the theory of (lower-e) evolution a “proven hypothesis.” Lower-e evolution is not Epicureanism; it is merely a scientific understanding (a “proven hypothesis”) of how the world and life that God created actually work.

I hope you have found these quotes from Bishop Wright to be as edifying as I found them. Thanks, and may the Lord bless your ministry at Biola.

Chris Falter

3 Likes
30

Here, there is no claim about God. It is a claim about known scientific models and data. At no point in my science do I make any claims about God.

I do make some claims about God in my theology. That He is uniquely revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And through him all things were created that have been created.

So try again Cornelius. At the moment, it seems like a totally incoherent charge. Do you really still think it is my Christian religion and belief in creation that drives my science and acceptance of evolution? How exactly does that make your case?

2 Likes
31

There are other models @GJDS, they just do not appear to fit the data without invoking miracles. We have considered one elsewhere… (e.g. @glipsnort tried to see if he could make a recent sole-ancestry model work with HapMap data (we got close, but not fully there). Can someone explain like I'm 5 yo, what's wrong with this refutation of Biologos? - #16 by glipsnort

Also in The Biotic Message Walter ReMine proposed a model. I liked it. Though, it was falsified by the data. Others, like Hugh Ross at RTB and Todd Woods also propose models.

My point is not there is only one model. Rather there is a large number of patterns in the data that are only (as far as we know) explained by CD models. There are many CD models too, and we are regularly testing between them. Maybe there is a non-CD model that explains these patterns, but we do not yet know it.

I suppose a “deception” model would work with the data, where God is trying to deceive us in the data by making it look like it is the product of CD. But I do not think any one takes that seriously, it wouldn’t be the Christian God, and also concedes the point that data clearly points to common descent. That just makes my point stronger.

Don’t misread this @GJDS we consider models other than common descent. CD is the only one we know of that works with the data. This isn’t definitive of course, but that is why science settles on this conclusion.

32

Unfortunately @Cornelius_Hunter communicate’s NT Wright’s position about as accurately as he communicates the data from scientific papers and ideas expressed by his interlocutors (e.g. me).

@Chris_Falter, can you give a link to the quote?

1 Like
33

So is adhering to a theory of physics that best explains the motion of the planets a religious claim simply because we use it to describe how God governs things? Regardless of whether your assertion has merit, I don’t see how it manages to explain or critique anything that Dr. Swamidass has said because it can be applied to any observation about the natural world. Can you please explain your position(s) better? You seem to be reticent about stating what you believe about the nature of science and how the multitude of species came into existence, all while using terms in a way that no one here would use them. It’s really vague and confusing, especially when your respond in one or two brief sentences and don’t flesh out your points.

4 Likes
34

Actually it is not incoherent. The claim that AS patterns are particularly problematic for creationism is a religious claim.

35

Gosh no, not sure how you got that.

ADDED:

Well I’m sorry for the confusion, though I must confess that I’m confused by your question. What you are perceiving as terseness in my answers, I am perceiving in terseness in your questions. Is it not obvious that “X is problematic for creationism” is a religious claim?

Now, you could say that Ken Ham claims ~X, and we observe X, therefore X is problematic for creationism, and this is not a religious claim. In that case, that would be understandable. But of course not only did Ken Ham never say any such thing, more importantly the claim was not particular to any tradition. It was a general claim, encompassing any kind of creationism. It wasn’t a comment on AIG, or whatever.

Keep in mind what the claim is. It is this: “this data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent.” [emphasis added] So in other words, the claim is: “God wouldn’t likely create X in a non CD way, period–I don’t care what Ken Ham says”. That is a religious claim.

Or if this helps you, the claim is this: “There is not likely a non-CD way that God would create X.” Or, “God likely would create X only via CD”. Again, this is a religious claim.

So I’m not sure what you are confused about. I could expand it if you like:

  1. Pseudo exons are observed in alternate spliced genes.
  2. God would not likely create pseudo exons (in a non common descent way such as creationism)
  3. Therefore pseudo exons are a problem for creationism.

Step 2 is a religious claim. Make sense?

Here is another way to think of it: Imagine that you believed the claim. That is, imagine that you believed that the data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent. Then of course you would believe in common descent, in spite of all the empirical problems. The metaphysics forces your hand.

By the way, this type of reasoning is common historically. Often it entails claims about disutility, or inefficiency, of non aesthetic designs. And the claims are typically based on relatively new findings which obviously are not well understood yet and, yes, much more is later learned to change the premises of the argument. Junk DNA is not always junk. That is an aside, from relevant in this case.