My ID Challenge

Faith & Science Conversation
674

Hi Chris…

Please read my OP more closely. No where in that post do I state or even infer that I was taught by YEC zealots, and indeed I was not. The fact is, I was taught by what I now understand to have been TEs. I was taught, and still believe in a universe and an earth that are billions of years old.

Now, please allow me to point to a critical distinction: I do not believe that evolution has to be a purely natural process. I do believe, and have backed up with numerous references, that the TOE specifically teaches that evolution is the result of purely natural processes. The TOE teaches purely natural, non teleological mechanisms; to wit: natural selection acting on random mutations. Any teleological element has been deliberately purged. And when you (and many others here) put the evolution of life in the same category as gravity, chemical bonding, and meteorology, you rubber stamp the notion. The fact that you believe that God is the cause, even the necessary cause, does not take away from the fact that gravity, chemical bonding and meteorology “happen.” They happen naturally. They happen deterministically. Indeed, they happen predictably. In short, and as I’m sure you would agree, we do not need to invoke God every time two chemicals bond in nature. This is a key insight into where you and I part ways. If we do not need to invoke God every time matter “behaves” according to the natural laws which constrain it, and if we say that evolution works in the exact same way, then we must concede that there is no need to invoke God in the evolutionary process. At best, God is outside the process, having set things in motion and then backing off. It would be nonsense to say that these two chemicals “chose to bond.” Inanimate matter is aimless. It is mindless. Inanimate matter does not make choices. Purpose requires choice. Thus, inanimate matter and the interplay thereof, is mindless and it is purposeless. You and I would agree that there is purpose which is manifested in the establishment of the initial conditions. But that purpose is extrinsic. There is no purpose intrinsic to natural processes (a purposeless process cannot produce an intended result).

On the other hand, information does not happen naturally. It does not come about in deterministic fashion. Indeed, coercion and determinism destroy the potential to create any significant amounts of functional, prescriptive information. The ability to choose freely at each successive decision node is critical to generating functional, prescriptive information. Imagine if each stroke produced on my keyboard were constrained and governed by deterministic laws rather than by my deliberate, goal oriented free choices. There is no way I could ever get this post you! Therefore, the deterministic laws that govern chemical bonding and gravity are woefully inadequate causal candidates for the prescriptive information that undergirds all life.

You are right to observe that scientific theories take no position on matters of faith. However, if we wish to hold an accurate worldview - something that has always been of the highest importance to me - we will allow what is true to inform our worldview. If it is true that we do not need to invoke God in the regular, deterministic interplay of natural processes, and if we are willing to promote the origin and evolution of life as a natural process, then it should be no surprise when we conclude that there is no need to invoke God in the origin and evolution of life.

I do not agree that the origin and evolution of life can be explained by the same causes that explain gravity and chemical bonding. I used to believe it. And when I did, I quite logically realized that I did not need to invoke God. But when I came to grips with the full implications of the truth that life is fundamentally information processing, I also had to come to grips with the fact that, like any information processing system, life requires a Creator, not merely natural processes.

I understand that the folks who run BioLogos like to promote the notion that there is some sort of “warfare” mentality going on. There isn’t. I do not see science and faith as being at odds with one another. Frankly, I never did. This whole warfare thing is itself a warfare strategy and it is a false dichotomy. The science - the evidence - from life clearly points to the necessity of a Creator. I urge you to consider this evidence.

Chris, I consider you a brother in the Lord and therefore I am grateful for you and your willingness to engage. I thank you for your prayers.

675

One thing should be obvious to you George: I am not ducking anything. So be assured that I am eager to give you an answer to your question (though you have never addressed any of mine). So maybe you can help me make an informed choice then! Please tell me specifically what you mean when you say “evolution with God.”? How, as you say, is “God involved in the process”? I am not clear on this, but once you enlighten me, I will be in a much better position to make the choice you wish me to make.

Thanks in advance

676

This is true only to the extent that we as human agents have come to the conclusion … by this, I mean that we provide the equations and theories, and measurements, etc., that gives meaning to such assertions. This is where arguments regarding information become vague - one thought experiment may be to try and imagine oneself “outside” nature, and see if nature provides information to a disinterested observer.

This area is fascinating, as it makes human agency central to such discussions. There is speculation, for example, that seeks to show the human observer causes the quantum ‘wave’ to collapse to the measurement we would regard as informative. I make these remarks to point out this type of reasoning has a long way to go before we can consider ourselves knowledgeable - and the origins of life are far more complicated than these aspects of science and human agency.

677

Casper…

Thank you for your patience and please forgive me! I don’t know how, but I completely overlooked this post from you. Be assured that I never intend to ignore an honest, thoughtful post.

To answer your question directly, I don’t see any reason why God could not have programmed a front loaded evolution. But does the evidence point to such front loaded evolution? Personally, it is a door that I will not close, though I do not see convincing evidence. I do, however, see very clear evidence for the programming of life (as do even atheists) in (among other things) protein synthesis, epigenetic controls, and, as you rightly point out, embryonic development:

“I can actually agree with your answers to a certain extent. The level, sophistication, and precision of the programming required for embryonic development are a clear manifestation of the creativity of our Creator. This “logic gate sequence” operates through natural processes, but is nonetheless indicative of God’s creative mind.”

Indeed it is! And I would further say that inasmuch as you and I agree that embryonic development manifests the necessity for the role of a Creator, it is this evidence that we should elevate together, and proclaim together. Then, from the common bond of unity in our Creator, we could have a pleasant debate as to whether our Creator front loaded all life with one program or developed a myriad of programs designed to operate on the same basic OS.

The one disagreement we will come to is the very last part of your quote. Perhaps it is a mere question of nuance, but how can you say that a logic gate sequence operates through natural processes? For a successful logic gate sequence to obtain its specific target, wise choices must be made at each individual decision node. Natural law would constrain predictable deterministic outcomes. Successful logic gate sequences are not - cannot be - thus constrained. Successful programming must be free to operate on choice contingency, which is the very opposite of predictable, constrained determinism.

1 Like
678

31 posts were split to a new topic: Spin-Off: ID, Neo-Darwinism, Ev News and Views, Discovery, etc

695

Hello Joe,

I am not sure what to make of this discussion. After all these posts, @deliberateresult, you seem to have a fundamental problem with science.

Let me offer an example by describing how this conversation about biology would have sounded like if it were instead about physics. I choose physics because, as you assuredly know, there are physicists who state that the Big Bang can be explained as the result of a fluctuation in a quantum field–and therefore it is foolish to believe that there is a God who created it. As far as I can tell, the Joe Palcsak OP would be:

“Astrophysics is opposed to God’s Word. How can we expect anyone to believe that God created the universe when scientists say it can be explained in purely natural terms! Our kids will fall away! We have to teach them that the universe does not behave according to equations, but instead it reveals God’s wisdom and power.”

And then Joe would cite all manner of quotes from physicists–some of them Christian physicists, can you believe that?–that describe the universe as behaving in a purely natural manner, which is to say according to mathematical equations such as the Friedmann-LeMaitre equations.

And then Joe’s friends would say, "Actually, Joe, the science of physics does not make any claims about faith matters. Atheists choose to believe that the physics perspective is the only valid one, but as Christians we believe that God created the quantum field out of which the Big Bang arose.

“We also believe that the universe has a purpose. The science, as we see in the Friedmann-LeMaitre equations and Einstein’s gravity equations, doesn’t describe a purpose. But that doesn’t mean the universe has no purpose; it only means that the purpose can not be inferred using the scientific method. In fact, the reason we believe the universe has a purpose is that the Creator has revealed His purposes in His Word, in His interactions with men and women like us, and even, at rare moments, in His interactions with us personally.”

“And besides, those Christian physicists you quoted also state that they believe that the universe is created for and according to God’s purposes, even if the equations do does not offer any proof. You have profoundly misrepresented their faith and their philosophy of science when you leave out their faith perspective, often found on the same page as the passages you quoted.”

“Bottom line: the physics perspective and the faith perspective can agree, even if some claim otherwise.”

And then Joe’s response would be:

“Here are some more quotes that prove that the Big Bang can be explained as a purely natural process. Therefore, the Big Bang intrinsically excludes God! How can any Christian agree with the Big Bang?”

Substitute biology for physics, and the theory of evolution for the theory of the Big Bang, and you have everything you need to know about Joe Palcsak’s 128 posts and the 540 replies.

I don’t think I can say anything else that you will benefit from–clearly you have derived no benefit from anything I’ve said in my 34 posts. So I bid you adieu, my brother, and this time I will have the self-control not to bother you any more with my unfruitful words.

Blessings,

Chris Falter

EDIT: If you’d like to talk about anything other than biological origins, I would be happy to do so. You have always been civil, you love God, you work hard for your family–we have plenty of common ground.

In fact, if you can think of a constructive way to move the origins discussion forward, I’m all ears. I happen to be out of ideas on that front.

1 Like
698

Chris, I don’t think you meant this to be a reply to me.

703

That is correct, Steve. I originally intended to reply/quote a post of yours which was very well-stated, and relevant to what I wanted to say to our friend Joe. Then I decided to go in a different direction, not realizing that the site Javascript would continue to mark it as a reply to you.

Hope all is going well for you in Massachusetts.

710

@deliberateresult

Oh my God, please give me strength.

I’ve answered your repeated question every single time.

And now you want to know what I mean with my answer.

I’m not going to bother to honor your provocations with any more of my efforts to extract YOUR opinions. I’ll let the much more clever people to bang their heads against your “wall” of immovable thinking.

711

@gbrooks9

I do not get the point of this thread George. What difference does it make what @deliberateresult 's personal definition of evolution is? We already know that he has the wrong definition and doesn’t want to change it. He does not have the authority or the right to choose the definition that suits him for us or anyone else.

712

@Swamidass

OUCH! You just trapped yourself. I didn’t ask @deliberateresult for his definition of Evolution.

He already defines Evolution as UNINTENTIONAL - WITHOUT GOD. More than 80% of the scientists surveyed actually USE this definition!

I specifically asked him what he would call “Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation + at God’s Direction”.

He is pretty clear that he wouldn’t use the term Evolution. Fine. So what would HE call it?

Because once he finally gives it a name, we can all move on … we don’t have to keep hearing him say that the BioLogos position is definitionally wrong.

You following, Swami ?

713

Why exactly is he entitled to enforce his idiosyncratic definitions on this dialogue? What you are describing is just theistic evolution. If he can’t follow that, it is because he is being stubborn. New vocabulary won’t change that.

1 Like
714

@Swamidass

Exactly. If he won’t provide us his terminology, I really don’t give a flying hoot what he wants to talk about.

He’s here as a SPOILER … he is not here to arrive at a conclusion, or develop a synthesis.

He is here to HARASS the LIVING SAP out of anyone who uses the term Evolution without qualifying it…

Our moderators dont’ find this particularly offensive. I think they are just too gentle in spirit.

715

If all you have to argue about with him is definitions, then the conversation is over. I do not think he will change. Even if you fight him about it for 100 more posts. Let it go =).

716

Exactly, @Swamidass

… please see this link to this identical conclusion I made FIVE (5) hours ago…

718

I’ve kept out of this debate for the last 662 comments, but have felt that what is presented as Joe’s sheer stubbornness is at least a valid and longstanding point to recognise.

Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, on publication of Darwin’s theory, opposed it on the very grounds that Joe states: that it denied God’s providential guidance and hence was essentially atheistic.

His colleague and successor, Benjamin Warfield, embraced the theory as science, by dint of specifically rejecting the atheism/agnosticism implicit in Darwin’s book, and the more overt denial of teleology by influential followers like Huxley. He seems to have concluded that a Christian theory of evolution was a modified Darwinism, not simply blanket agreement with the original.

Hodge and Warfield did not, in essence, disagree - they were simply dealing with different understandings of Darwinism. Fast forward to today, and there are still a good number of “Huxleys” to suggest evolutionary theory to be necessarily naturalistic to influence education, public perception and even scientific colleagues, even if the official definition is simply “common descent”. (I have to say the word on that seems not to have got out to everyone - Google “modern theory of evolution” or “definition of evolutionary theory” and see how far you have to look to get to one that is simply “Common Descent with modification”).

In the end, substance is more important than definitions, at least while Larry Moran has to criticise as influential a biologist as Jerry Coyne for building “the illusion of design” into his own definition, and the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Science for an “inexcusable” definition.

But that’s the same Larry Moran who won’t accept any limitation to science regarding God and evolution:

When you are thinking like a scientist there’s only one possible conclusion. There is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the history of life on Earth was guided by God. Everything we know about the history of life is consistent with an entirely natural process—one that’s characterized by chance and contingency. It is perfectly reasonable as a scientist to state this position clearly. This is not stepping outside of the boundaries of science.

I conclude that we’re not yet at the time when one can simply say “I accept evolution” without a good proportion of people reading metaphysical commitments into it. Until that changes, is it not helpful to accommodate to people’s varied experience and be more specific?

720

@Swamidass, the above is particularly well-worded, wouldn’t you agree?

@GJDS, I hope, understands this explanation. I don’t believe @deliberateresult is going to grasp your point.

I believe I’m reaching the conclusion that “God-directed descent with modifications” …>>IS<<… a useful and productive equivalent to my earlier phrase: “Natural Selection + Genetic Motivation + Directed by God”.

721

This is an insightful comment and caused me to ask a simple question, “Do I accept the theory of chemical bonds?”

When I considered this question, I felt like I said something strange. A chemist would not ordinarily think of accepting the current paradigm of his profession, because that is the very reason he finds that discipline interesting and fun. And I would make a similar comment if I was asked, is chemical bonding theistic or atheistic?

It is strange because such a question would not occur to me or my colleagues.

So I wonder why ToE is so saturated with other commitments, be these metaphysical or religious or anything else for that matter?

My view is that such “baggage” was part of the inception of ToE, and it has continued to be so to this day.

2 Likes