Laws of science and theological understanding of Theistic Evolution

GJDS, what you left out is the Logos, or the rational side of the universe. Most science begins with an idea, which is then confirmed or rejected by appropriate experiments and/or observations.

This should be true, if we accept a rational universe regardless of our faith viewpoint. Darwin based his theory of evolution the theory of the Survival of the Fittest, which he adapted from Malthus. Dawkins called his theory the Selfish Gene.

Both of these theories are based on conflict and thus consistent with atheism. On the other hand, the experience and the science of theology and philosophy is based on harmony and cooperation.

Interestingly enough survival of the fittest has not been verified by science. Fit has been defined as bearing children who also bear offspring, so it is a tautology. On the other hand, ecology has introduced the concept of symbiosis. Ecology has been enormously successfully in explaining why and how plants and animals have been able to flourish by adapting to their environment.

In my humble opinion ecological evolution is better than survival of the fittest for one and one re4ason only. It is better science based of facts and not ideology.

Natural law, as I understand it, is a term that deals with human rights and ethics, while natural theology interprets all created phenomena as gifts of the Creator, and natural law theologically is the ability to align one’s life with this principle of lovingly serving everything created.

I am using laws of nature as a scientific term, and I am also trying to understand how TE’s use it within their reasoning.

Patristic writings deal with the intelligibility of the universe and man’s role within it. It is this that as a scientist, I find most interesting, in that we can access the Creation and reason about our observations (be it theistic or atheistic). Humanity can respond intelligently to the created order, can add to it, and also destroy some of it.

I agree with the ambiguity - my point is to consider a law (within the scientific meaning(s)) as making requirements on God. This may be expressed as ‘working through’ such laws, or ‘breaking them’, or any expression that places a requirement or limitation on God.

Doesn’t this address that point?:

I have tried to understand your point, but alas I have failed. The manufacturer has made a vehicle based on designs and other information on components and artifacts - your analogy would apply to all of these and also material properties. My guess is that you may be using the manufacturer analogy to apply to God? So, if the manufacturer changes a component of a vehicle, you feel he has broken his ‘law of the vehicle’? If this is so, I do not think it applies to how the phrase ‘laws of science’ is understood.

Someone has said an analogy is a three-legged horse (and maybe especially that one ; - ). Don’t overthink it. Yes, the manufacturer is God and tires are natural laws, the way things normally work. They do not apply to God just like tires don’t apply to the manufacturer. He can override them on a short-term ‘miraculous’ basis. (If he did it long-term, he would be making a fundamental change, not just an exception.)

(“Natural law” is not used exclusively as a philosophical term and is frequently equated, not necessarily conflated, with ‘scientific law’ in everyday parlance.)

an observable law relating to natural phenomena.
“the natural laws of perspective”

I think you have missed the point - there is nothing for God to override. I made the point previously that we view things as regular and anything else is extraordinary to us, to our understanding (which you define as a miracle). My limited understanding is that everything is as it should be to God, and He does not have to modify or overide anything - all is subject to His will. Science is limited, as many comments on this site have stated.

To get back to the topic, I can understand a discussion on biological evolution, but I fail to see the term Theistic Evolution as meaningful.

Of course, to God, his deeds are not miraculous. Is that your point? Nothing can constrain his hand and the only ‘limitations’ he has are due to his essence. He is limited in that he cannot not be omnipotent, for example, nor can he be anything less than omniscient. So no, there are no ‘laws’ binding him.

Biological evolution is science, neither ‘secular’ nor Christian. Unbelievers do not believe God has anything to due with its outcomes, and that random chance (that may be redundant ; - ) is a major driver.

Christians should, I believe, know that God is sovereign over time and ‘chance’1 in his providence, and we can conclude that from our knowledge of his providential interventions in the lives of his children and for which we have – yes, one more time – factual evidence (not to mention abundant scriptural evidence). Unbelievers will of course dispute that, especially if they have predetermined in their badly mistaken worldviews that the supernatural does not exist.

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33

So, evolutionary creationism (or evolutionary providentialism ; - ) is a legitimate discussion for Christians to engage in and not an empty term. (I don’t make a huge distinction between theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism, probably because I am not familiar with the nuances of each. That the former term could be more deistic I suppose might be one difference.)

 


1 Regarding time and chance, yes, Ecclesiastes says “time and chance happen to all”, but that is another discussion. (Much of Ecclesiastes is written from an everyman perspective, not necessarily from a godly one or God’s.)

Theistic evolution is meaningful, because Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest) is not scientifically meaningful as I noted above. The way the earth revolves around the sun is not based on irrational chance, but rational scientific laws. So it is with all real science.

GJDS “My limited understanding is that everything is as it should be to God, and He does not have to modify or overide anything - all is subject to His will.”

Yes, everything is subject to God, but that does not mean that God needs to or wants to micromanage the universe. God delegates the governance of the universe to science and humanity. Also, because science and humanity are both good, but limited, the universe is good, but not perfect.

God, science, and humans work together not against each other. God uses science based on the laws God created to govern the world. Humans use science using the laws to God created to make our lives more comfortable and meaningful.

The mistake of ID and Darwin is to make the world a dualism between the physical and the spiritual. The world has physical, spiritual, and rational dimensions which work together to create one world of peace and justice for all when we allow God’s Love to work in our lives.

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33

So you deny that.

You may have noted it, but you have not successfully made your case.

Dale, if that is the way you make decisions in your life, you have my sympathy. Prayer is the way I communicate with God.

Dale, if I have to prove to you that in my Abba’s world Right makes Might, rather than Might make Right, then again you have my sympathy.
Does it take a terrible war to wake people up?

Francis Collins chose great name for BioLogos, Bio- as in Life and biology. Logos as in the Truth in theology- Jesus Christ, the Truth in philosophy, and the Truth as in scientific facts as in Biology. This one word brings these three basic disciplines together where usually they have been kept apart.

The big question is: How to bring them together? The simplest way is to say that theology is right, so science, where it differs from theology, is wrong, but we can see that ID is clearly not right.

Then we can say that science is right, so theology, where it differs from science, is wrong. That seems to be better, but there are some voices in the scientific community such as that of Karl Popper which warned that Survival of the Fittest cannot be a scientific fact.

Still there was no alternative understanding of the phenomenon of evolution until the emergence of the science of ecology in the 60’s and 70’s. Symbiosis brings the Logos of theology, the Logos of science of evolution, and the Logos of philosophy together supporting one another as they should. BioLogos. Long may it last.

You’re pretty funny. You appear to be clueless about Father’s sovereign grace and providence.

We (your part of we is in focus at the moment)… we get forgetful in our old age (I suspect I’m your senior) or you haven’t been paying attention to Father’s numerous providential interventions into my life. See if this series (series, not just one-offs) looks like anything you might have seen before: about my nephrectomy.

I’m not even going to address your scientific issues. It appears you do not have a good science education, especially with respect to the reality of how evolution works. Multiple folks here have tried over the last few years to try to rectify that situation but failing to make a dent.

The term “laws of science” is strange and ambiguous to me. The terms I use are…

laws of nature - how things works in the universe
the mathematical space-time equations (and principles) - how we have coded the laws of nature as we understand them.
the methodology of science - how science works to discover thing about nature.

Even the term “scientific laws,” although ok, is not one I use very often - so even that sounds a tiny bit funny to me. Why??? I guess it is because I think science is very much a process of discovery rather than invention. The point is to understand the laws of nature which are already out there.

In the case of mathematics, this is a bit less clear, because what we find in mathematics depend more heavily on what questions we ask, and they need no check to see if that is how the universe actually works.

I suppose the theoretical sciences can often resemble mathematics more, since they often construct theoretical frameworks which can describe far more than what actually exists. For example, just because we can describe tachyons and wormholes does not mean they exist. In fact, in the case of tachyons, we typically use the prediction of tachyons to reject scientific hypotheses, since we are inclined to believe they do not exist.

How things work in nature is a better expression. I may seem pedantic, but I equate the term “law” with legislation, something set down by a recognized body. Thus, when discussing theology, the term is clear, be it laws laid down by Moses, the great law, or teachings of Christ. Within this context, I question the term ‘laws of science’ as something God uses or is obligated in some manner is erroneous - thus my comment onTE.

I do not play games with the Bible or faith. You suggested that I denied a statement in Proverbs. I assumed that you most take casting of lots as a good way of discerning the Will of God because you used it. If you do not, you are being very hypocritical. Which is it?

Have you read *The Selfish Gene? This is the most important book on evolution of our generation and the key to our discussion.

I am glad your kidney surgery was successful. God has blessed you as God has blessed me. I had skin cancer. Thanks be to Abba.

I am probably older than you but will not hold it against you. I have certainly been blogging much longer than you and know all the tricks people play.

@Dale and @Relates your discussion is off topic and if you are so inclined, you should continue it elsewhere.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.