Not quite. The debate is - or certainly should be - does life manifest evidence of design? It looks like you agree with me that life is clearly distinguished from the inanimate world by qualitative differences. That’s terrific! Now let’s you and I take the next logical step together as children in Christ. Let’s proclaim and celebrate the evidence from life for our Creator!
Sorry, are you actually saying that if can be demonstrated that rain is the product of a natural process then that would prove God doesn’t exist?
Thanks for the succinct answer - I think most of the arguments around neo-Darwinian theory(s) have their origins in obscure claims and speculation that cannot be supported by sound scientific work, and this is particularly so when we discuss how life originated. My view is that much of this pseudo-science is driven by atheists and anti-theists, to provide a basis for materialistic beliefs and outlooks.
It is tragic that believers fail to appreciate these matters and instead are drawn into the rhetoric of materialists - I also think it is sad to see so much angst between believers who go to great lengths to defend ND against those who do not accept it in the form presented by atheists and anti-theists.
Thus, it is not so much that a door is opened for believers to become unbelievers, but instead endless arguments and obscure presentations of ND within a theological framework, either frustrates some who cannot follow the reasoning, and/or so much emphasis is placed on “understanding God’s creation within an evolutionary framework”, that some people end up seeing it as evolution = new theology that brackets God into a humanly defined role.
In any event, thank you for questioning and probing the arguments in ths area.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here, Joe. Maybe you should elucidate a bit more.
I’d love to hear your boldness with scientists from branches other than biology, Joe. It might go something like this:
“If you physicists can’t reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity, then we must reject both quantum mechanics and relativity.”
Or:
“If you astronomers can’t explain dark matter and dark energy, then we must reject the Big Bang.”
But just because scientists can’t explain everything doesn’t mean they can’t explain anything. And in the field of biology, scientists have strongly refuted most of the ID examples of design inferences. The emergence of blood clotting, chloroquine resistance in malaria, flagella, new protein folds (contra Axe), etc., have all been explained in detail.
What did you think of the articles I linked to, Joe? They’re an important basis for my thesis in this thread, so I’d love to hear your opinion on them.
4 Likes
People who believe God was the ultimate guide of evolution (by making key genetic mutations and/or changes in ecology) have no problem visualizing how birds evolved or whales.
Hi Chris…
Even though I am pretty sure I know what you are getting at here, I am going to ask you to flesh this out a bit before I indulge my urge to respond right away. So when you say, “The consideration that many of us have been raising is that what you say of TOE is also true of physics, and astronomy, and number theory, and chemistry, etc,” what is it specifically that I am saying about the TOE that also applies to these disciplines?
Thanks
it comes down to this, Christy: The Bible - the living Word of God - tells us plainly in many ways from Genesis to Revelation that God has Created us. The Bible tells us one thing, and the TOE tells us a different thing. The two cannot be reconciled; their claims are mutually exclusive of one another. If one is true, the other is false. This is a truth that is evident to many, if not most. This is why the TOE has a unique way of destroying faith. As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, evolution is a universal acid that eats through our most cherished beliefs, to include belief in God. Indeed, Biologos’ own Karl Gibberson borrows Dennett’s metaphor directly in his book, “How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution,” when he says:
“Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost my confidence in the Genesis story of Creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science. Dennett’s universal acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the garden of Eden, it destroyed the historicity of the events of Creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to those stories - the fall, ‘Christ as second Adam,’ the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I had counted sacred”
That’s quite a mouthful, and once Christianity is denuded of the above doctrines, we are clearly left with that which Paul sternly warns against in Galatians; we are preaching a different Gospel.
Thus, the TOE, as many of us can recognize, is a singular and unique destroyer of faith.
Bill: it is clearly evident to many, if not most, that the two make mutually exclusive truth claims. Therefore I am curious: can you lay out a specific case for your position?
Thanks
Doesn’t say how.
You keep implying that the theory of evolution denies God’s involvement in Creation. It doesn’t.
Regardless of the metaphysical claims of a Dennett.
Does it erode fundamentalism? Yes. Appropriately.
Christianity is not equivalent to “North American fundamentalist Christianity.” Further, the biblical authors themselves were not “North American fundamentalist Christians.”
2 Likes
To me it is quite simple. Scripture indicates God is in control of all the natural processes that were known at the time it was written, such as creation, weather, embryology, etc. Why would you believe God was not in control of a new natural process, such as evolution or nuclear physics, when it is discovered. I don’t care if an atheist says God is not in control of evolution because I know God is. Exactly how he exerts that control is unknown and may well be unknowable. We don’t know how he controls the rain, but he does.
5 Likes
James: even atheists can see the evidence:
Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”
Crick: 'Biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they are seeing is not designed, but evolved"
It is both ironic and tragic that you refuse to see the evidence of God’s hand in life, yet proudly proclaim that evidence in nature.
The evidence from life is very clear: life requires a Creator. This is good news for every Christian, not something to deny or shy away from.
tell you what: When you begin to discern that a qualitative difference exists between rain and living organisms; both in this world and in the Word of God, we will be able to proceed with a conversation.
I see. And do you believe, as the Scriptures I have cited plainly affirm, that this “first morally responsible human” was a man named Adam whom God Created in His image?
Ok Deliberate, do you believe in the hard dome Scripture calls the firmament? With sun, moon, and starts stuck in it? And the heavenly sea above it?
Some Scriptures are so very plain and clear that no “tradition” needs to be “taught”
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
1 Timothy 3:16
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace”
1 Corinthians 14:33
So just to be clear here, you are saying that Adam was not the first man but you can still believe Scriptures that clearly affirm that he was?
Also like in this passage then, right? from Psalm 93:1 “Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”
To say that God has steered events is to say that purpose has been introduced into the process from outside the process. I gave this analogy to Eddie and will now give it to you: Nick sinks a 30 foot putt. Now, did the ball arrive in the hole through a purposeful process? Indeed it did. But do we say that it was the purpose of the ball to end up in the hole? Was it the purpose of the four fundamental forces that the ball ended up in the hole? Or was it, in fact, Nick’s purpose?
what makes you say this?