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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
@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
…
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?
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.
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
@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.
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.
I’m quite baffled at DeliberateResult’s positions so I won’t presume to speak for him. Perhaps you could propose a Q&A with him. JohnZ is another participant on these threads who I often find baffling. (And no doubt my positions are baffling to them.)
I suppose I tend to see the gulf between the major positions here as this: those who affirm what the scientific academy in consensus has concluded from examination of the overwhelming evidence, and those who take exception from various aspects of that position.
After some years on the latter side of that divide, I came by careful and arduous study to being absolutely compelled by the evidence to affirm what God has revealed in his creation and in his scriptures. As a result, I have no reason to struggle against what I see to be the clear reality of what God has done. I investigate and affirm what I find in the consensus of the academy as to the Theory of Evolution. (As an associate likes to say, “God did it. I believe it. That settles it.” Yes, that is meant to be tongue-in-cheek but it is also meant to remind everyone that one can bow to the Creator while affirm the evolutionary processes God in his wisdom chose to establish.)
Even if there may be aspects of the created world that I find unpleasant, that in no way gives me reason to deny or dispute the reality around me. God didn’t ask for my advice on whether the gravitational constant would take a difficult toll on my knee when I stumble and fall down. Likewise, God didn’t consult me before creating evolutionary processes or taking billions of years to craft this universe. (Recall God’s rebukes of Job.)
When I behold the overwhelming evidence for vast ages virtually everywhere I look—and the wondrous complexity and effectiveness of evolutionary processes throughout this planet in countless different environments—I have no veto powers. I only have recognition of God’s power and a growing amazement as I learn more and more of the details of the evolutionary processes involved.
Yes, some people do not recognize the voluminous and compelling evidence for evolution and billions of years. Yet I am not responsible for their knowledge and circumstances. I only have responsibility for my own----and I am aware of the mountains and mountains of evidence and the fact that a rational Creator gave us a rational world where evidence matters (both in the universe and in the Bible) and that revelation from God in his amazing creation cannot be ignored. Who am I to reject it, especially when it fits together to tell an awesome history of life on earth?
I may still get squeamish at the thought that without the shedding of blood there is not remission of sins—even if I might personally wish that there were some other way. (I still haven’t viewed the very honest depiction of the crucifixion or anything else in the Mel Gibson movie.) Likewise, the evolution of life through billions of years of earth history involved many harsh aspects which may shock my sensibilities. Nevertheless, I have no reason to reject or deny that which God has chosen to do and to reveal to us according to his grace. I’m only a humble slave of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We all take different routes and at different paces to reach our respective understandings of God’s revelations in his universe and in his scriptures. So humility and grace is certainly required throughout. We each must respond according to that which God has chosen to reveal to us, keeping in mind that to those who are given much, much is expected. We have all born born into an age in which much that was previously hidden of God’s wisdom and power have now been revealed. We even have the many phylogenetic trees of over a century and a half of evolutionary biology confirmed and augmented at the molecular level by incredibly detailed genomic data----and thereby displaying the same nested hierarchical relationships. The consilience of the data is overwhelming, and entirely consistent of what we would expect of an omnipotent, omniscience Creator. Praise God!
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” ---- Revelation 22:13
And that YHWH God created the Laws of Thermodynamics, mitosis, photosynthesis, gravity, relativity, evolution, RF induction, and everything else which man has observed and has yet to observe. Surely all we who belong to Jesus Christ can stand together in harmony and agree that he alone, the Creator of all things, is worthy of power, honor, and glory forever and ever. Amen!
Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.
Well, I think that the only naturalistic evolution that is not front-loaded is atheistic evolution or deistic evolution (deistic evolution doesn’t make sense to me - If we assume an omniscient first cause that put into effect a universe that evolved man, how can we think that that creator didn’t know what would happen). But aside from that I have two responses to the above quote. One - yes, any one, “random” event can’t guarantee an intended outcome. But, knowing that God at least at times uses large amounts of time to accomplish his means, it’s not to difficult to see that random genetic mutations over time can be seen to help lead to intended outcomes since beneficial mutations will eventually come about. Combining that principle with the constraining that evolution seems to operate under it’s not out of question to understand how God could use even naturalistic Neo Darwinian Evolution to provide accomplish His means. Two - as I stated before, we can’t be expected to have a complete understanding of how God could use this naturalistic evolution to provide intended outcomes.
I don’t know about, “most” ECs being influenced by the Enlightenment. I think the way one views evolution is primarily influenced by how they view Genesis. Once I accepted the Framework Theory as the best way to view Genesis 1, I no longer saw the need to concord it with modern science. That allowed by to think of God using natural processes as being capable of evolving man without any local action. Though I’m not against that a priorily, and I’m certainly open to new evidence, I just think that the evidence that we now have indicates that front-loaded, naturalistic evolution is the way God, “created” man.
Here is my theory as to why God would intervene in the events depicted in the bible and not in evolution. There are 3 types of life in the universe as I see it - biological, cosmological (including geologic and atmospheric events on earth) and Spiritual. The only one that can be corrupted by outside forces is Spiritual, hence the need for interventions.
I’m a little confused by your initial posts.
Why wouldn’t God use his awareness of the future of all things to arrange a naturalistic evolution … that looks and feels lawful in the natural universe … but was arranged by Him?
Hi George,
Can you specify which of my previous posts you are responding to since your post doesn’t seem like something that I’d object to.
Hmmm… I guess when I read the section I have here highlighted, I got the impression that you were opposed to God’s interventions. And so I thought you might have meant it in the same way that a few here mean it:
God might send an asteroid to change an ecosystem … but he would never mutate a gene.
Based on your most recent response I see that I misunderstood your previous post:
The, “was arranged by him” is referring to local action by God. You were correct, I don’t hold to interventions, though I’m not so much opposed to them as I feel they are unnecessary. God wants us ensconced in natural causes and He is more than capable of creating a universe that evolves man through these natural causes. Above I’ve stated a few ways of how we can understand how God could accomplish that, though, as I stated as well, we’ll never know all the details.
Maybe we should just take God at His word that what looks and feels natural really is. 
Why can’t I have God mutating a gene? I do, through natural causes, and over time beneficial ones are bound to arise and hence here were are. I really don’t think it’s all that difficult to understand, nor is it, “unbiblical”, as soon as we stop attempting to concord Genesis 1 with modern science.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.