@Jon_Garvey, that is a nice paragraph!!!
It unites the idea of randomness from the perspective of science … with the idea that nothing is random from the perspective of God!
2 Likes
Hi Jon,
What a marvelous little essay! I had thought that you were advocating the use of theological formulations to express theories instead of the scientific formulations. Instead, you are advocating the use of both scientific formulations and theological formulations. I enthusiastically agree.
Hi Eddie,
Hunter in fact accepts disutility, inefficiency, and non-aesthetic structure as evidence against design. His disagreement with evolutionists rests on the argument that scientists have occasionally discovered that what was once thought to have no utility in fact has utility.
The reason that arguments are made with respect to utility, efficiency, and aesthetic harmony is that anything we can identify as being intelligently designed possesses those traits (the computers and keyboards we are using, our houses and plumbing, etc.). If you bought an automobile and discovered that it could only turn left (not right) and drive backwards (not forward), you probably wouldn’t think it had been designed very intelligently!
Of course, we find plenty of examples of utility, efficiency, and aesthetic harmony in the biosphere–along with numerous examples of disutility, etc. A good theory should be able to account for both. The theory of evolution does so, but ID does not.
By your definition of modesty, Eddie, Kepler was immodest when he declared that planets follow elliptical orbits. After all, he had no evidence of a mechanism that would generate such orbits! It wasn’t until Newton that a mechanism (gravity) was proposed.
And of course, Newton could not explain what caused gravity. It was Einstein who did that.
And Einstein never explained what causes mass to deform spacetime. It just does.
By your definition, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein were immodest. I suggest that your definition of modesty is askew. The modesty of science is that it deals with the what and the how, and leaves the metaphysical questions for other disciplines. And this is exactly what Darwin did. He saw that vast bodies of natural phenomena from fossils to finches could be explained by common descent with (poorly understood) variation and natural selection, so he went to press in 1859.
First, let us recognize that their claims are not the same claims that Meyer, Behe’s books, and Hunter are making. The ID movement (outside of the latest Denton book) has claimed that some biological phenomena have no natural explanation, and can only be attributed to intelligent design. What the founders of modern science claimed, instead, is that the natural causation that we observe is a manifestation of divinely created order.
I agree with Newton, Boyle, and Kepler, and I respectfully disagree with Meyer, Behe’s books, and Hunter.
6 Likes
Well thankyou, Chris. I believe that some such clear mental process is vital to prevent the tendency for methodological naturalism to lapse into metaphysical naturalism (or, in the case of Christians, into various flavours of what is actually Deism). In other words, Epicurean metaphysics gets to be assumed as a part of science, rather than of materialisc naturalism.
The place, it seems to me, where such “dual expressions” ought to be standard practice are where the bios and the logos come together. But first one needs to promulgate the understanding of what it means to have a robust Christian metaphysic underpinning one’s interpretation of science, and more often than not I’ve received the equivalent of blank looks about the matter over the last six years!
4 Likes
So, for my final thoughts, I want to start by echoing your (@Cornelius_Hunter) sentiment to clearly delineate my goals here.
My goal is to understand and be understood. We do not need to concur on the details, and we almost certainly will not on the science. That is fine. But our goal can be to understand and represent each other better.
So, here, I have a three part closing thought. (1) we have real common ground. (2) still I feel you are not understanding my position, and this is contributing to an unnecessary debate about things which we agree on. (3) and I want to propose a way forward for the two of us.
After this post, I would request that those conducting side conversations continue them in other threads (e.g. @deliberateresult, @Eddie, @Jon_Garvey , etc.) . Your side conversations are great, but they will get more attention if they are moved to their own focused thread.
However, if you also would like to add your statement of common ground with @Cornelius_Hunter after mine, I would welcome that.
Our Common Ground
The most important and meaningful consequence of this conversation is real common ground we identified here. Common ground is our points of unargued agreement, even if we might at times use different language to refer to the same concept.
I’m going to try and list the most important points. If you have not heard me affirm these points before, please consider this a definitive statement of my current views. If you disagree with any of these points @Cornelius_Hunter , our would rephrase them, please message me privately and I will make changes. In that way, this post could serve as a joint conclusion of this conversation, without sucking us into a public relitigation of minor points.
-
We both are followers of Jesus, and seek to take the Bible seriously as God’s authoritative Word to us.
-
We both believe that the Bible could be compatible with common descent, young earth creationism, and old earth creationism. In this way, we both see a great deal of freedom in Scripture about the creation model we employ.
-
I was very glad to hear you say that there is evidence for evolution. We both agree about this. [quote=“Cornelius_Hunter, post:91, topic:10729”]
Sure, there is plenty of evidence that supports evolution/CD.
[/quote] -
We also agree that this evidence for common descent is not definitive (albeit for different reasons). I think that (within science) the evidence is definitive, but outside science it is not. I emphasize the limitations of methodological naturalism, and how this puts an “asterisk” over scientific claims. The only apply to the extent to which God’s direct action was not important. But we know that God has directly acted in history, so this makes the truth claims of science weaker here The 100 Year Old Tree. You, on the other hand, emphasize evidence you think counters evolution. Still, we take different paths to the same destination: the evidence for common descent is not definitive.
-
We both agree that there is purpose and forethought in this world. We both agree that God created all things, including us. We both agree that God designed us too.
-
We both oppose atheism, deism and epicureanism as false representations of the world. You are correct, also, that atheistic evolution often looks very much like a revival of epicureanism. I would add that also share your discomfort with some theistic evolutionists rhetoric, in that it sometimes seems to support a deistic view of the world. Your point is that God is deeply involved in this world, and I agree.
-
We both agree with and respect the theistic evolutionist N T Wright. That is great news. In particular, @Chris_Falter’s post on this is important Joshua and Cornelius get to know each other - #29 by Chris_Falter. It is good to know that Wright is a place of common ground, and that he is a theistic evolutionist.
-
We both agree that the grand worldview philosophy of Evolutionism is wrong. By Evolutionism, I mean it as defined by N T Wright. There is no argument from me here with you.
-
As you put define it, we both oppose “dysteleology”, the notion that science (even evolution) some how demonstrates that there is no purpose in nature. I would add that along with you I also disagree with the arguments against design and creation you have catalogued Joshua and Cornelius get to know each other - #59 by Cornelius_Hunter. You are correct to point them out as religiously motivated. Though, I should add, you are incorrect to think this is the argument that @DennisVenema and I are making. They are arguing against creation. We are not.
-
Similarly, we both agree that Behe agrees with common descent and respect that he has separated his nuanced view of evolution from the grand philosophy of Evolutionism. Of course, he identifies himself as a theistic evolutionist (as do I), but you do not. Regardless, I appreciate that you see he has a very nuanced view.
-
I totally agree with you that science has not demonstrated that God did not intervene in our origins, or that His intervention was not necessary. I think claims to the contrary are wildly overstating science’s conclusions. One does not need ID arguments to make this case, but just to understand the limits of mainstream science, and the nature of scientific knowledge. Of course, you put more emphasis on ID arguments; and I find these arguments weak. Once again, we take different routes the same conclusion.
-
I think we both have real genuine personal joy and interest in the details of the science. It is truly beautiful, and we both embrace it.
-
We both want to engage the “other side” to make progress. This is even why this thread exists, and why we have spent so much time on it.
-
I agree with you that you have not always been treated charitably, even here on these forums. And even by me in particular. For my part, I apologize and am glad to know that you forgive. It is good that we act as members of the same Church family in this, and I appreciate if/when you apologize too. Trust in relationships builds this way.
But I Do Not Think You Fairly Represent or Understand Me
As much common ground as we have, it is frustrating how often my position has been misstated by you. I guess this is because you see similarities between some of my statements and others, and therefore assume I am making the same arguments as them or hold the same beliefs. I cannot be sure, but these misrepresentations inhibit our ability to have meaningful conversation about science.
-
The claim that my conclusions are different than you because of my religion are false. After this dialogue, I cannot identify a signal substantive difference in our theology. I certainly see major differences in our science, but nothing in our religion. Look, maybe I am wrong in my science, there is zero evidence that religion that explains our differences. We have the same religious starting point. We both affirm God’s purpose and action in this world. We both see the Bible in similar ways. We both oppose atheism and deism. We both oppose Evolutionism. What exactly is our religious disagreement? As yet, I see none. This point is important to me because I have been dismissed from my first interaction with you by the claim that I have different religions beliefs. Until we can identify at least one substantive difference, I urge you to drop that accusation.
-
Connected to point #1, there seems to be a pattern of extending my arguments far beyond my intention, and assuming I am making the same arguments as atheist evolutionists. This is not what I am doing. At no point would I argue against creation or design. For goodness sakes, I believe God created and designed us. Rather, I do not think this doctrine benefits from what I see as faulty arguments. With the ID movement, I frequently disagree with the logic of an ID argument, while entirely affirming the ultimate conclusion: that we were designed/created.
-
I keep a very strict line distinction between the scientific theory of common descent (i.e. evolution as I define it) and the religion/philosophy of Evolutionism. I understand that there is historical crossover between these notions, and that you link them tightly. But I sharply divide them. You seem to miss this frequently, assuming my presentation of the scientific theory, is somehow a backdoor support for Evolutionism. It is not and never has been. It would be nice if you acknowledged that I am just as opposed to Evolutionism as you, and that evidence for the science evolution (e.g. common descent) is not evidence for Evolutionism.
-
I do not ever argue “creation/design didn’t happen because God wouldn’t have created/designed that way.” Besides being a faulty religious argument, it is illogical. Therefore, it is not valid to extend my (and @DennisVenema’s) reasoning to that of Jerry Coyne’s, as you have done Joshua and Cornelius get to know each other - #59 by Cornelius_Hunter. We are not arguing, as does he, “Again one must ask: If animals were specially created, why would the creator produce on different continents fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act so much alike?” Rather, we start from the belief that God created us. We ask what model you are using because that is how we see science working, by testing rigorous mathematical models of larger theories. Yes, you are an ID advocate, and (it appears) an old earth special creationist. That is the theory, but we need a specified model to test it against the data, to see if it fits better than the common descent models we use in science. That is a very different thing than saying “creation/design didn’t happen because God wouldn’t have created/designed that way.”
-
In the end, I have a very nuanced position. It is just as nuanced as Behe and NT Wright. I am articulate and careful in communicating in a way that is consistent with this. Granted, I do not yet have a book out on this (though it may be forthcoming), but many people on the forum are correctly restating my position. Moreover, I have tried to explain this multiple times to you, to be silenced by misrepresentations of my own position. That is a bit frustrating.
-
My support of methodological naturalism is not an endorsement of Naturalism as a religion or philosophy. In my science, I only look at natural mechanism. In my conversations with ID folk, I frequently bend the rules to also consider specific design principles or models of design (where they exist, e.g. ReMines’ Biotic Message or Sanford’s Genetic Entropy model). But this scoping is not an endorsement of Naturalism, which I view as a false view of the world. Sometimes it seems like the statements I make within science (according to MN) are reinterpreted as statements in favor of Naturalism writ large. That is not the case.
Of course, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. In your defense, there are not a lot of conservative non-open-theism theistic evolutionists out there. I am one of the few actively making my case, without denying God’s action in this world. So I can accept that I am a bit of surprise, and might take longer to understand. In that, it is entirely possible that this is not intentional misrepresentations, but a consequence of my surprising position in the dialogue (though I am not unique).
So Where Could We Go From Here?
I have a simple proposal, that I think will go a very long way to building bridges of trust and relationship.
Why not put me in the same mental category as Michael Behe and N T Wright? I am just another theistic evolutionist that has a very nuanced view of evolution. You find enough common ground with Behe and Wright to correctly articulate their position, and draw upon them. We both respect both of them.
In view, I am in the same category. Though my “nuance” is different then Behe, it is almost identically to Wright. If you like N T Wright, even though he accepts common descent and small-e evolution. Why not like my position too? Of course, we can still tussle about the scientific details (and there is substantial disagreement here), but this would at least orient us more truthfully to what our real disagreements are.
Of course, on my end, I think I need to treat you with more understanding too. For example, it was not good say you were motivated primarily by “fear” of science (sorry), though I’m still lost as to how pointing to a wiki post of scientific laws is evidence that naturalism has failed.
It is my hope that this conversation concludes with us having a way forward for better interactions. Thank you again for spending your time here @Cornelius_Hunter. I genuinely look forward to your return.
For those following this conversation, I invite you to add your final statement, with your own explanation of your common ground. However, please continue the side conversations in new threads. The moderators can help you split things off if you so desire. Thanks.
5 Likes
4 posts were split to a new topic: Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism
I believe this to be a very important BioLogos post, on an important BioLogos thread. I find myself in agreement with all these points of common ground.
My own aim has been, for several years, to flesh out how one can do justice, within this worldview, to both the "bios and the “logos” of theistic evolution without simply holding two incompatible views in the same brain.
Achieving that would go a long way to meeting Eddie’s desire for an understanding of “Evolutionary Creation” that avoids deism.
I would like to stress Joshua’s point:
When I was a doctor, I took sides on controversies within the profession, and even more when the profession seemed to be pitted against those operating on different paradigms (who were, in public discourse “alternative practitioners” and in private “quacks”).
Now I am retired, I see that in the scheme of things those disputes were all relatively small beer: my own professional paradigm was imperfect, and patients got well from the “wrong” treatments who didn’t get well with mine, though of course mine were generally best!
We should remember that there will be no scientific disputes in the age to come - though it wouldn’t surprise me if they were still going on in hell.
7 Likes
For what it’s worth, I will also share my final reflections on this conversation.
First of all, I want to echo the sentiment of @Jon_Garvey concerning the importance of this conversation. I must say, I had fun! I appreciate @Cornelius_Hunter’s willingness to come here and express his views. I wish more people involved in the origins discussion would do that. Imagine we could have such conversations here with Jason Lisle, Hugh Ross, or Stephen Meyer!
Mulling over the arguments that Cornelius brought to the table here, a certain frivolous image struck me that seems to capture the discourse quite well. Bear with me as I lay out this imagery:
Imagine a very long obstacle course, with obstacles of a large variety of difficulty levels. At the end of the course, there’s a group of scientists who study the way the athletes cover the course. It turns out that most of the course is parsimoniously captured by a single framework. For lack of a better word, these researchers call this framework “natural processes” (including, e.g., gravity, muscle biology and physiology). This framework helps the scientists to identify which obstacles were the most difficult ones. There are even some obstacles of which it is not completely clear yet how these were overcome by the athletes. However, the efficiency of the description provided by natural processes (for the rest of the course) generates a confidence that even the most problematic obstacles can in principle be understood in terms of the same processes. This confidence is reinforced by the fact that the athletes already covered the whole track and that the researchers are still making new progress in understanding how the different obstacles are being covered.
Then a certain Dr H comes along. Dr H starts pointing out all the difficulties he perceives to be present in this natural description. He spends hours on end arguing about how difficult certain obstacles are, while using the same framework of natural processes for that evaluation of difficulty. What’s more, he looks at the confidence these researchers have in the framework of natural processes (generated by its success for the large remainder of the obstacle course) and misidentifies it as religious zeal. Because of this, that whole framework looks like a religiously motivated story to Dr H. Some of the group of researchers ask him, “Then how you think those athletes covered the obstacle course?” He remains silent. Unfortunately, Dr H does not have any description to replace that framework with. The only solution Dr H offers in return is to back off from trying to understand the obstacles in terms of “natural processes”. However, without them, there would not even be a way to evaluate the difficulty level of the obstacles. Adopting his proposal would not only take away the fun of exploration from the researchers, it would leave Dr H himself without an interpretative framework because he has not proposed an alternative.
I know that analogies are never perfect, but this little story seems to capture the discourse here quite well. Cornelius thinks in terms of problems, while mainstream science is more about finding solutions. You can only fairly criticize a framework by confronting it with a more viable alternative. Thus far, I haven’t seen Cornelius come anywhere close to specifying such an alternative to the evolutionary paradigm.
My two cents,
Casper
6 Likes