My ID Challenge

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@gbrooks9

Eddie, Nothing in this is gnostic. There’s nothing in it about the demi-urge or gnosticism… Clearly the zaniest of your rants …

George, I can’t decide for sure that it’s the zaniest of his…well…“declarations”----but I have no hesitation saying that it is certainly within the top five.

[Nick_Allen (nicolas andulsky allen)]

@deliberateresult

let me ask you a question Nick: is there a difference between natural processes and supernatural processes? What might that difference be?

You answer your own question here:

@deliberateresult

Intelligent agents routinely constrain natural processes toward intended results. This does not infuse purpose into these mindless processes as I have clearly and repeatedly shown. The purpose is every bit as external to these processes as the intelligent agent who constrains them. Thus, the purpose comes from God’s control.

Therefore, the supernatural process is God’s control. The natural process is that which is being controlled, and also that which God has set in motion.

@deliberateresult

Why would you insist that without scientific proof of the necessity of God, no one can believe in God

Here we have a perfect example of you not listening and instead investing in straw men of your own making.

Nope. You made your own straw man when you said in the OP: [quote=“deliberateresult, post:1, topic:4944”]
reasoning that if life could be explained by purely natural processes, God was not necessary, and therefore, must not exist
[/quote]

Some of the resistance that you are getting on this thread is from people who see ID itself as a straw man, ie. @Swamidass when he says: [quote=“deliberateresult, post:799, topic:4944”]
I embraced and then rejected ID too. This is almost the rule among evangelical scientists. I know probably a dozen at my university alone.
[/quote]

In matters of faith, ID evidence is nice, but not necessary.
@deliberateresult

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Chris_Falter

Given the fact that you define the theory of evolution so differently than the scientific community does, you will understand that I have to wonder about those 3 decades.

sigh…I have quoted mainstream biology textbooks, including textbooks authored by TE Ken Miller. The definition is not mine. And to borrow a page from your own playbook, outside of BioLogos, it is very difficult indeed to find anyone - be they Christian or atheist - who would disagree with the definition of the TOE as a purposeless process. Wonder all you wish.

@Chris_Falter

As for Lenski’s bacteria, his own team identified a “genetic switch” upstream which had been turned off.

And here I have to question how carefully you read Lenski’s paper–unless you are relying on third parties. Lenski’s team discovered that the citT gene was copied (via an amplification mutation) into the region of a promoter active in the presence of oxygen. Your desciption of this discovery does not sound like their description of the discovery. Your description does seem to echo the description by the Institute for Creation Research site, however.

The promoter turned on the citT gene which normally imports citrate into the cell in the absence of oxygen. And when you say “Lenski’s paper,” it is not clear to me that we have read the same paper. The one I referenced was Blount, et.al. (Lenski’s team). But that’s a small matter. My point was a response to your original point:

" If we instead rely on scientific observation to provide the foundation for our faith, we run the risk that the supposedly strong fortress of “irreducible complexity” will get blown up by observations of the emergence of nylonase from a frameshift mutation3, or the emergence of citrate metabolism in a Michigan State lab"

Neither the work of Lenski’s team nor anything concerning nylonase refutes the concept of IC. In the case of the former, nothing new has emerged. In the case of the latter, it is still too early for any definitive conclusions (1). Nor have I ever made IC a “stong fortress” in my own defense of ID. In fact, I don’t recall even mentioning it. Unless and until it can be demonstrated that natural processes can produce the most advanced data processing system we have ever encountered and the most technologically advanced feats of engineering we have ever encountered, no one’s faith in God is at risk when we proclaim that life manifests evidence of a Creator.

@Chris_Falter

The only place I see this analysis on the web is in an article by Purdom on the Answers in Genesis website. It is completely contrary, however, to the report of the team that made the discovery:

My own speculation is inspired by the work of Ohki et.al. I don’t know this Purdom fellow and I will restrain myself from sharing my speculations on your motives and your “research” methods here.

@Chris_Falter

I have followed the footnotes in the Purdom/AiG article, and discovered that they make the unwarranted conclusion that the frameshift mutation led to a less specific esterolytic activity. Ohno’s team, however, did not describe a less specific esterolytic activity, but rather the ability to break down a different ester (nylon-6).

why, at this point in our knowledge of the nylonase gene, is it unreasonable or unwarranted to conclude that we may be looking at a loss in specificity?

@Chris_Falter

many, if not most, mutations that appear to confer a benefit to the organism may actually be pre-programmed into the organism (See the work of Lee Spetner and his theory of Non Random Evolution, for example)

Spetner is a Jewish physicist who believes that all of life stems from 365 different species that God created during the literal 6 days of Genesis 1. You expect me to take a citation to Spetner as evidence of your recent reading outside of YEC/ID authorship?

Neither Spetner’s religion nor his view of Genesis 1 should factor into any evaluation of his hypothesis. Moreover, it was not my intention to answer your charge against me when I brought up his work. Rather, it was to serve as an example that there are those who see some mutations as pre-programmed events built into the organism. This should have been clear from the context. But let’s go ahead and replace Spetner’s hypothesis with the natural genetic engineering hypothesis of James A. Shapiro who, while some may accuse of Jewishness, no one will confuse him with YE/ID.

@Chris_Falter

After all this research, Joe, I have found no hint of a citation to mainstream biology in the passage you cited as proof to the contrary. I suppose I might have missed something, but you’re going to have to supply specific evidence if you want me to believe otherwise.

It seems to me Chris that the fruit of your “research” amounts to a whole bunch of effort to justify your claim that I only read creationist literature. It is frankly not worth my time to continue indulging this rabbit trail of yours. I have provided evidence to the contrary for what its worth, and frankly its not worth much. But let’s suppose for a moment that everything you accuse me of is true, and I am only reading creationist sources. So what? The question is not what are my sources, the question is whether there is any truth in what I am putting on the table.

I am happy to engage as deeply as you wish concerning nylonase, citrate, the flagellum or IC (with the caveat that none of these issues are central to my main points), but as far as your accusations concerning my sources, I am done with it. You can travel that road all you wish, but it will be alone. If this is goodbye, so be it. If you want to continue, so be it.

(1). I try to use my words carefully but here I have to confess to some sloppiness. What I should have said is that it appears possible that the bacteria could have already possessed the ability to digest a similar substance.

deliberateresult:

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

ECs of course say that God “intended” to use an evolutionary process. But they also very often say that the evolutionary process God actually used (Darwinian, blind search for useful combinations followed by natural selection) does not produce top-notch design, but only crude, makeshift design, often with harmful side-effects. So when you put that together, it means that God intended to use a clumsy process which would produce results of varying quality and goodness.

@Eddie,

There are two sentences that should be stated … and you only stated one of them.

You said “God ‘intended’ to use an evolutionary process.” But you ALSO need to state: “God’s guidance of natural selection and genetic mutations transforms the evolutionary process into one with purpose and intention.”

From Point 9 of what we believe: “. . . . we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.”

See more at: The Work of BioLogos - BioLogos

As the Creationists have long said - - in the eyes of man Evolution’s design may look clumsy and crude … but how can man measure God’s design.

But the dilemma you point to is a subtle one: ID proponents who think God’s design is evident in His amazing creation - - BioLogos supporters are splitting the difference. God’s creation is amazing … but NOT so amazing as to make God’s presence and work obviously so.

All you are doing is pointing out that ID proponents OVERSTATE THEIR POSITION.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Eddie

One of the bizarre things about some EC writing is that the ECs fight tooth and nail against design in nature, arguing that evolution is a messy process filled with accidents and makeshift adjustments, that parts of animal and human bodies are poorly designed from an engineering point of view, that some of the suffering in organisms is so cruel that no wise or loving designer could be responsible, etc. – but then turn around and tell us how much more we should admire God for creating through this cruel, makeshift, and inefficient process rather than through intelligent design and execution!

The main thing I have objected to in your argument was your representation of “evolution” as inherently anti-Christian. I agree that evolution as frequently formulated has anti-Christian intent or implications. I also think it is quite clear that Darwin abandoned Christianity and that he saw evolution as a process without any fixed ends, so I do not think that evolution as Darwin personally understood it can be squared with traditional Christian faith. But I don’t think the very idea of “evolution” – by which I mean “descent with modification” – is in itself contrary to the Christian faith. And I don’t agree that evidence for “descent with modification” should cause anyone to doubt the truth of the Bible. The only place where there might be a tension between evolution and Christianity would be over the origin and nature of human beings. But even there, if we imagine the process of descent as a planned or directed one, I don’t think the special character of man needs to be impugned.

The difficulty, of course, is that many current EC leaders make it very difficult to imagine how the process could be either planned or directed, and actively rebuff most of the suggestions that anyone makes in that direction, mocking such suggestions either as “God of the gaps” or “tinkering” on the one hand, or as “too deterministic for a God who loves the freedom of his creatures” on the other. But that is not a problem inherent to “evolutionary creation”; it comes from certain doctrinaire commitments of current EC leaders, some of whom tend to be unflinching on their philosophy of nature, on evolutionary mechanisms, on theology, or all of these. If EC leaders took seriously the “openness of the causal frontier” between God and creation that I’ve spoken of elsewhere here, instead of fixating on “methodological naturalism” (that is, if their philosophy of nature were more Biblical than Kantian), EC would not have these problems.

thanks Eddie. Honestly, I have been addressing (or should I say trying to address) “evolution as frequently formulated.” But again, I have to say that any sort of guided evolution is a different kind of evolution than an evolution by natural processes. The word “natural” and the word “supernatural” are two different words. It seems to me that many people here would love to plant their flag on two hills and claim that evolution is both a supernatural process and a natural process. It just can’t be both.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

thanks Eddie. Honestly, I have been addressing (or should I say trying to address) “evolution as frequently formulated.” But again, I have to say that any sort of guided evolution is a different kind of evolution than an evolution by natural processes. The word “natural” and the word “supernatural” are two different words. It seems to me that many people here would love to plant their flag on two hills and claim that evolution is both a supernatural process and a natural process. It just can’t be both.

@deliberateresult

More word games.

If you want to characterize BioLogos description of God-guided evolution as “Evolution by Supernatural Processes” … that’s fine with me. I won’t argue over something trivial like this.

If we believe that God has arranged natural law to accomplish his evolutionary goals … it looks just like Evolution with natural processes - - but with better results.

[Richard_Wright1 (Richard Wright)]

@Eddie

Hi Eddie, I just would like to start off by saying that I enjoy your moderately tempered, well-written and up-to-date on the facts posts. And I’ve seen that lately you have been defending stands that you probably don’t agree with, at least not wholeheartedly.

I also have seen you express frustration with EC leaders’ lack of providing explanations of how God could control the outcomes of front-loaded evolution. I’m wondering if the real answer is that given our finite capabilities we are incapable of discovering and might not ever know (at least while in our physical forms) how God works in that way, any more than we can know He answered a particular prayer. Maybe God doesn’t want us to know how he works. And your frustration may be unfounded - I don’t think people are trying to skirt the issue but simply don’t know and possibly don’t think we can know exactly how God works in Evolution. Isn’t one of the problems with new atheism is that they think they can know everything, like God. Let’s not fall into the same trap. God has worked in mysterious ways and he doesn’t expect us understand everything.

@Eddie

"We know from neo-Darwinian biology that the evolutionary process has no fixed outcomes;

I don’t know if that is entirely true of all EC leaders or even most. Though you may know more than I on this, my impression is that most believe that God did intend man to appear through (some would say, “natural”) evolution, but can’t say how God did it.

An aspect of that statement that is vague is the “exactness” of outcomes you’re referring to, and you could ask the same thing of cosmological evolution (to which noone seems to have a problem attributing to, “natural” processes). Did God know exactly which star and planet were going to form, and when and where? Or did he know that at least one would be like earth given the physical paradigm He put into motion.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Eddie

Joe, I agree that there is a difference between an evolutionary process where God takes a personal hand, influencing local events, and one where nature is left entirely to its own powers. But it doesn’t follow that a purely natural evolutionary process would exclude divine purpose. God might have “set up” evolution so that it had to produce certain results, wholly by means of natural steps. One might call this “front-loaded” evolution. If God did such a thing, I would see no conflict between that and traditional creation doctrine (as long as rigid Genesis literalism was not insisted upon). God would still be sovereign over all the outcomes of evolution. But no EC leader known to me, except possibly Lamoureux, seems to endorse front-loaded evolution.

Front loaded evolution is compatible with theism. I do not think it is compatible with Christianity. But that is a different conversation. If a Christian who champions front loaded evolution is willing to stand with the ID proponent in championing the clear evidence for the necessity of a Creator, I would call that big time progress and be happy to engage in an intercollegial debate about our disagreement.[quote=“Eddie, post:817, topic:4944”]
Thus, for me it is not the “naturalness” of evolution that is the problem; it is the absence of any account of how God ensures outcomes if he binds himself (as Oord suggests he has) never to work outside of natural causes
[/quote]

Amen to that!

[Richard_Wright1 (Richard Wright)]

Hi Eddie, thanks for the response.

Your views seem to rest on the assumption that a naturalistic evolution cannot guarantee the existence of X, but only offer the possibility of X.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

Front loaded evolution is compatible with theism. I do not think it is compatible with Christianity.

If a Christian who champions front loaded evolution is willing to stand with the ID proponent in championing the clear evidence for the necessity of a Creator,

I would call that big time progress and be happy to engage in an intercollegial debate about our disagreement.

@deliberateresult… so let’s clarify your position.

A Venn Diagram for your positions might be described accordingly:

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS
[Front-Loaded Evolution / Natural lawfulness]
is NOT compatible with Christianity

…

• • • • Area of Overlap
        …
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Nature convinces us that
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • there must be a Creator
                                                …
• • • • Area of Overlap
        …

BioLogos EVOLUTIONISTS
[ Naturally Lawful Evolution IS compatible
with Christianity ]

So, I’m a little confused. Even if a BioLogos supporter AGREES that the natural world
CONVINCES him that God must exist … you would NOT permit that God taking 65 million
to create humans could be compatible with Christianity?.. that ONLY a universe where
God created the earth and all life in 6 days is compatible with Christianity?

Could you explain that?

What are some other beliefs that you think are incompatible with Christianity?

• • Slavery?
• • Acupuncture?
• • Belief that a global flood did NOT happen?
    .
    .
    .

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Socratic.Fanatic

Seed of atheism? Or are they simply being honest? The “hidden-ness of God” has been a struggle for theologians for centuries.

And yet God is right beside us, all around us, and immediately accessible! The veil has been torn and whosoever seeks Him with their whole heart will find Him. He is only hidden from those who desire that He be hidden.

@Socratic.Fanatic

. I consider evolution to be among the very greatest testimonies to God’s power and wisdom. Imagine establishing a universe with physics and universal constants which inevitably produced life and the evolutionary processes which continually adapt and diversify that life.

Forgive my impoverished imagination, but I can’t, so here is what I would really love to get out of you and this post: how exactly did the physics and universal constants inevitably produce life? You obviously believe this to be true and you believe it passionately. Please tell me how. Please share your reasons for believing this. I am literally begging you for an answer to this one.[quote=“Socratic.Fanatic, post:801, topic:4944”]
YET…if asked to use the Scientific Method to identify and quantify the role of God, I’m not all that surprised that I’m not able to do that
[/quote]
Once again, I do not care whether you deign to ascribe the advanced data processing of life and the technological brilliance of the molecular machinery of life as scientifically testable or not. Throughout this entire thread I have consistently held that these twin pillars, which lie at the foundation of all life, represent evidence of the strongest nature that life requires a Creator. No one has so much as attempted to refute the validity of either. So here is the difference between you and I in a nutshell:

I believe (whether you wish to call it science or not) that the most advanced data processing system and the most technologically advanced engineering we have ever encountered, manifest evidence for intelligent agency. You believe that physics and universal constants alone are responsible for these phenomena.

Again, I ask you to share your reasons for believing this

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

You believe that physics and universal constants alone are responsible for these phenomena.

Again, I ask you to share your reasons for believing this

@Socratic.Fanatic

@deliberateresult accuses you of this belief? Is it true? You don’t think God established all of it?

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@gbrooks9

@deliberateresult accuses you of this belief? Is it true? You don’t think God established all of it?

That may be DeliberateResult’s accusation but that is not at all my belief!. I adamantly believe that God created everything. My acceptance of scientific evidence/facts in no way precludes God’s sovereignty.

And if DeliberateResults wants to understand how God used evolutionary processes and the fundamental constants of the universe to create everything that we observe around us, there is no shortcut or substitute for picking up a physics book and getting started----and reading biology books. I’ve even pointed to evolutionary algorithms which will train his/her sense of intuition to begin to grasp how natural processes can build complexity and all sorts of things which IDers like Stephen Meyer claim is impossible.

Believe me, I’ve tried to provide summary statements and analogies but they simply reject them----so that tells me that the entire process of self-education is necessary. Otherwise, they will dismiss what I say just like they dismiss what every science textbook will tell them: “No, I don’t believe it.” There’s no solution for that other than education.

I’ll repeat it: There’s just no substitute for a strong science education. And as long as someone insists that the science academy is wrong about everything they don’t like, the longer they will remain in the dark.

I certainly can’t provide any shortcut to what took me many years to understand. (I started out as a Young Earth Creationist who denied evolution.) If someone who is accustomed to an ICR-level or AIG-level of pseudo-science propaganda tries to grasp three, five, or ten years of actual science education with a paragraph or two of remedial tutoring, it’s not going to work.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

I’m still trying to figure out how he he rejects the witness of the natural world… in favor of ancient books on par with writings about Big Foot.