My ID Challenge

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@deliberateresult

YEC and EC or TE have in common at their core: each starts with a proposition that is completely non-biblical and interprets all of Scripture through the lens of that non-biblical notion.

While a fairly true statement, it is a little off in that only YEC claims biblical support for its position, and emphatically states that YEC is bibical, whereas TE and EC do not claim that bibical authority, and interpretation of the scripture stands independent of whatever scientific claims may be made. I realize that if you hold to EC, that does indeed influence how you interpret the bible as does every other view we have, yet ultimately they are independent in nature.

[Bill_II]

@deliberateresult

So my question to you is this: do you see any evidence for God in the things He Created, to include life?

Yes I do. Abundant evidence including the TOE.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

in the case of the latter, it is the proposition that all the novel body plans of every living organism are the sole product of the four fundamental forces.

@deliberateresult

Joe, I hate to say you have a comprehension problem … but someone should help you with that>

The one thing you should be learning from your time here at BioLogos is that MANY, MANY, MANY Christian BioLogos supporters believe that God exerts his miraculous powers to effect the chain of life we find on Earth.

While some of these Christians are content see God using only these Four Fundamental forces … there are also PLENTY of BioLogos supporters who see God invoking much more than just these forces.

In the beginning, your dismissive sweeping generalizations seemed to have the charm of a neophyte. But after all these weeks, it would seem that you either have a problem with comprehension of English writings … or you intentionally seek to provoke the folks here with your ju-jitsu of the BioLogos writings.

You should stop that. Really.

[Nick_Allen (nicolas andulsky allen)]

@deliberateresult

I will tell you what YEC and EC or TE have in common at their core: each starts with a proposition that is completely non-biblical and interprets all of Scripture through the lens of that non-biblical notion. In the case of the former, the proposition is a 6000 year old earth and universe, and in the case of the latter, it is the proposition that all the novel body plans of every living organism are the sole product of the four fundamental forces.

EC does not start with the proposition that the body plans of anything are the sole product of the four fundamental forces unless God is in control of said forces. You are confusing EC with atheistic naturalism.

I think that you are doing it because you think that your intellectual dishonesty serves a higher purpose. It does not. You will not increase anyone’s faith by tearing down EC to mitigate some imagined danger that someone might use EC as an excuse to become an atheist.

I think that the most constructive thing that Biologos could do would be to take the various competing, valid interpretations of Genesis found on the forum, and put together some short summaries so that folks could easily understand the different views, how they relate to scripture, and then decide for themselves which view is sound.

[fmiddel]

@Relates

I don’t think so. Chaos theory deals with weather, while ecology deals with climate and many other factors which would cancel out the possible vagary of chance events.

Chaos theory deals with any circumstance in which variables increase to make predictability impossible. That’s hardly limited to weather.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Jonathan_Burke

I am asking you if you believe that rain, which occurs quite naturally on this planet as a result of the interplay of the four fundamental forces and which can be wholly explained and understood in that way, can be explained in the same way that life, which did not exist on this planet for at least a billion years,and which is fundamentally different from the inanimate world, and which is a state of existence that is maintained far from equilibrium through a complex system of information processing using technologically brilliant molecular machinery?

Yes.

I see. So I think you and I can agree that God set natural processes in motion, constraining matter to behave in such a way as to produce, among other things, rain. Where we disagree specifically then, is that you seem to be comfortable believing that these natural processes by themselves are capable of producing the most advanced information and technology that we have ever encountered. I do not. We have learned a lot about what natural processes do; what they are capable of and what they are not capable of. I would really appreciate it if you could provide any reason we should have the slightest shred of confidence that natural processes are capable of producing technologically advanced, information rich systems. Thanks

@Jonathan_Burke

Oh yeah, and when it comes to human beings, were, unlike rain, made in the image of God?

Yes. So basically you’re completely comfortable with the idea that God could create systems which have every appearance of being completely natural and not requiring any further divine involvement, as long as they don’t include humans. Because humans are special in a way that raindrops aren’t. So what I’m seeing here is that your objection to evolution is based on what you prefer to believe rather than on evidence.

My My! It is always much easier to reply to a strawman than to the point that is actually made. [quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:343, topic:4944”]
I am assuming therefore that you see rain and life as fundamentally the same sort of thing.

No. They are different things. But I don’t see any reason why God can’t use the same kind of process to produce life as He used to produce rain. Life is full of autonomous systems which produce more life without any direct divine intervention.
[/quote]

And life always comes from life.
And every seed produces its own kind.
And in the entire body of scientific literature, we will not find a single empirical example of a novel body plan (for example, wings) arising through the mutation/selection process.

So as you have firmly stated more than once, you believe that God “used” these processes to bring about life. I believe that you believe this. I’d love to know why you believe it. How, specifically, did God “use” natural processes to Create life? Again, what is it about natural processes that gives you any confidence whatsoever that they are capable of bringing forth life from an inanimate world?

And one more question: Do you think that God Created the angels directly, or did He set a process in motion that would eventually produce angels?

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@gbrooks9

You are saying something different that what Paul says. Paul was not beholden to the TOE. Free from such shackles, he had no need to rationalize the Scriptures

@deliberateresult

Ahhh… what a nice way of saying that Paul knew nothing about physics, biology or cosmology … but we need to accept the modern interpretation by anti-science religionists of Paul’s views anyway.

Pretty ridiculous…

Two thing George:

1. Please don’t put words in my mouth. You and I both know that “Paul knew nothing about physics, biology, or cosmology” is not anything close to what I have said or intended to say. Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who knows all things.
2. It seems that every single one of your posts includes bolds and/or all caps. Let me tell you: this is just not an impressive strategy. In fact it is boorish. It is reminiscent of the old saw, “This is a weak point. Make sure to pound the pulpit”

I am happy to have a conversation with you. Just because you and I disagree does not mean that we cannot engage in a productive, substantive conversation. But if your only reason for posting here is to try to find some way to reword things that I have said in an attempt to make me appear to be rediculous, I think its time to move on.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who knows all things.

@deliberateresult

Joe,

Billy Graham writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

And he is ALSO not omniscient. Do you think Paul is more omniscient than Billy Graham?

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@fmiddel

Chaos theory deals with any circumstance in which variables increase to make predictability impossible. That’s hardly limited to weather.

In terms of what when we are talking about ecology?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Relates

I don’t think so. Chaos theory deals with weather, while ecology deals with climate and many other factors which would cancel out the possible vagary of chance events.

@Relates,

Chaos theory extends into all sorts of areas… and is not mutually exclusive with your mention of “’ . . . .cancel[ing] out the possible vagary of chance events.”

Chaos theory is based on the idea that small inputs can create huge changes… like the saying that the fluttering of a butterfly wing might trigger a hurricane.

Chaos theory can apply to the roll of dice as well. But over time, dice throws DO average out…canceling out the vagaries of probability.

CANNED DEFINITION: “Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.”

1. Changes in water levels;
2. Changes in seasonal extremes (hot vs. cold);
3. Changes in food supply due to rival species;
4. Changes in food supply due to intrusions of pest species;
5. Changes in predation due to changes in up and down the food chain.

All these things come together in a random swirl of cause and effect…

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@deliberateresult

So I think you and I can agree that God set natural processes in motion, constraining matter to behave in such a way as to produce, among other things, rain.

Yes.

@deliberateresult

Where we disagree specifically then, is that you seem to be comfortable believing that these natural processes by themselves are capable of producing the most advanced information and technology that we have ever encountered. I do not.

Since they were designed by someone like God, what makes you think they couldn’t be designed to produce such outcomes?

[quote=“deliberateresult, post:379, topic:4944”]
I would really appreciate it if you could provide any reason we should have the slightest shred of confidence that natural processes are capable of producing technologically advanced, information rich systems.[/quote]

Snowflakes.

@deliberateresult

It is always much easier to reply to a strawman than to the point that is actually made.

Please correct me if I misrepresented your argument.

@deliberateresult

And life always comes from life.And every seed produces its own kind.

What does “every seed produces its own kind” mean?

@deliberateresult

And in the entire body of scientific literature, we will not find a single empirical example of a novel body plan (for example, wings) arising through the mutation/selection process.

Yeah, we will.

@deliberateresult

How, specifically, did God “use” natural processes to Create life?

That’s like asking how God used rain to create snowflakes.

@deliberateresult

Do you think that God Created the angels directly, or did He set a process in motion that would eventually produce angels?

I have no idea where angels came from, and the question doesn’t concern me. I just don’t think about it.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Deliberateresult

Do you think that God Created the angels directly, or did He set a process in motion that would eventually produce angels?

@deliberateresult

If you know the history of the early years of Christian science, it was an established belief that a scientist (we would now use the term Alchemist) needed the help of Angels to learn how to manipulate or by-pass ordinary natural law to arrive at wondrous results - - for example, the making of the Philosopher Stone, or the conversion of the base metal lead into gold.

You seem to think that such a process is not within the bounds of a God-directed natural world.

This is why BioLogos throws open all the doors of possibilities by simply adding one key ingredient: God.

You continue to argue that somehow BioLogos is LIMITED by the process of Evolution itself. This is purely arbitrary, since the process used to create various life over millions of years is whatever God says it is.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@gbrooks9

Joe, I have to say I do NOT agree with this. Atheists do NOT see the signature… where the word “see” means “understand”.

And no doubt there are Christians who would agree with the conclusion… but would hesitate to agree with specific instances of what you think is obvious design.

What exactly is your current point or position? Have you finally acknowledged thatit is actually possible for a Christian to believe in an INTENTIONED Evolution?!

George:

Yes, I do believe that life manifests the necessity of a Creator. I further believe that this is great news for Christians and a wonderful way to witness to those who do not believe, who are genuinely seeking, and who are having doubts about the truth of what they believe.

As I understand it, you believe that the four fundamental forces alone provide an adequate causal explanation for life.

I have defended my position. I would like to know what it is exactly that gives you the confidence to take the position that purely natural processes are capable of bringing forth life in all its diversity?

Here’s the rub: the evidence for design in life is, and always has been overwhelming. It has never been refuted. It never will be. (by the way, atheists do “understand” the signature of design. If they did not understand it, they would not find it necessary to deal with it. See Romans 1:19-21). To recognize the evidence for design is not to lay any claim whatsoever on the knowledge of how the Designer accomplished His design; that is a different claim. The important thing - the key - is to acknowledge the evidence of intelligent agency.

Therefore, if you believe in an intended evolution, it seems to me that you are making a more specific claim than the one I am making. Not only do you believe that life was an intentional result, you also believe that it was accomplished through a process of (obviously non-darwinian) evolution. I would love for you to flesh this out for me. I would love for anyone here at BioLogos to flesh this out for me.

Are you one of those who would hesitate to disagree with me on what I think is obvious design? Great! Let’s have that conversation.

[GJDS]

It is easy to obtain a reasonable description of alchemy (see for example Wikipedia), and although this is of-topic, it is better to be correct on these type of blogs - various types of alchemy were practiced in China, India, Egypt and Greece. The western alchemy is derived from Greek-Egyptian sources, which are based on a pagan philosophy, and became prevalent in Europe as a result of translation by Arabic scholars. These outlooks are not derived from Christianity and during the Middle Ages, a fascinating range of activities are recorded, made difficult by the secrecy and esoteric symbols used by alchemists to protect their knowledge. A religious aspect may be thought to have been added by the notion that since the fall, mankind’s soul may be purified by alchemy, but most associated this with things like astrology. The transmutation of base metals into noble one is an example of purification of things, and this outlook included early attempts at producing medicines. The thinking by then consisted of Aristotle, translations of ancient text, and the ongoing effort by Medieval scholars to rationalise their version of science and faith. We will find the fascination with alchemy continued to the time of Newton, who seemed to have spent a considerable time and effort on the subject.

I cannot find anything that suggested alchemy was an attempt to by-pass natural law, nor discussions of God-directed bounds, or such. Most documents show scientists agreed that they contributed by their work to the glory of God, and attested to His creation.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@fmiddel

I have said this repeatedly, and it will be the last time. Any claim made about evolution that denies agency is a non-scientific claim–i…e, that evolution is “unguided” or “outside God’s control” or “proves there is no God.” It is a metaphysical claim that cannot be tested or scientifically proven. You seem to insist that “evolution and God’s existence are incompatible.” That is because you are inappropriately attributing this metaphysical claim to a scientific theory.

And you, sir, have not come to grips with what I am actually saying. One more time:

*Purely natural processes are devoid of purpose.
*They are devoid of purpose because they are purely deterministic.

For all of your protests, you have not even touched this main point. If there is a guiding aspect to the evolution of life, it comes from a transcendent source. And that transcendent source - not the natural processes which the TOE claims provide adequate causal explanation for life - is where the purpose comes from.

If you truly believe what you have said:

@fmiddel

I have said this repeatedly, and it will be the last time. Any claim made about evolution that denies agency is a non-scientific claim

then your disagreement is not with me, it is with the TOE itself. Kenneth Miller is not only a theistic evolutionist, he also authors biology textbooks. In his book, “Finding Darwin’s God,” Miller says:

“Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected… mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained… we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out"

He reiterates this point in his popular textbook, "Biology.‘’ It’s not simply the atheists who deny purpose in evolution. It is the theory itself. If nothing else, please know and understand what you are supporting.

Stick your head in the sand if you wish. The theory is what it is and if you want to inject purpose into the process, that purpose must come from outside of it. In the meantime I promise you as one who has been there, the young minds you are molding will not miss the dissonance when you claim that God “used” evolution.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@GJDS

I cannot find anything that suggested alchemy was an attempt to by-pass natural law, nor discussions of God-directed bounds, or such. Most documents show scientists agreed that they contributed by their work to the glory of God, and attested to His creation.

@GJDS

This is a good source for treating three overlapping topics: Christianity, Jewish Kabbala and Magical Science!

“Reichert, Klaus: Pico della Mirandola and the Beginnings of Christian Kabbala. In: Mysticism, Magic and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism, ed. K.E.Grozinger and J. Dan, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.”

1. Some alchemists thought Angels knew MORE natural laws; while OTHER alchemists thought Angels knew how to get AROUND natural laws. For some, this was merely a semantic difference.

2. The rise of Christian Alchemy encouraged alchemists to PURIFY their souls so that the Angels would commune with them.

3. John Dee, the original “007” for the Queen of England, is rather notorious for saying he was successful in invoking angels and recorded their discussions.

4. The image [below] presents the rise of the Christian Alchemists:

The Alchemist’s Laboratory
“Khunrath depicts the alchemist in a metaphorical laboratory divided into an altar to the labor of alchemical practice and one to the Divine Word.”

Some felt an Alchemical laborator without a place to pray was doomed to failure.

[GJDS]

Here we go again George - so to continue (not for long I hope) everyone knows that alchemy has been mixed with various religions, astrology, and so on (well before Christianity), and this trend continued until the times of Boyle and Newton (and even today there are those who subscribe to some version or other). So please do not get over excited - my point dealt with your notion of “by-passing natural laws”, or such odd statements you have made. Your re-occurring theme in your voluminous posts on BioLogos seem to centre on some notion about God doing this or that - this is why I at times have responded to you. Frankly other points you make do not interest me. .

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@GJDS

I cannot find anything that suggested alchemy was an attempt to by-pass natural law, nor discussions of God-directed bounds, or such. Most documents show scientists agreed that they contributed by their work to the glory of God, and attested to His creation.

@GJDS

I’m not really sure what your last post was about. The quote above was from your prior post where you seem to demonstrate a lack of awareness of the full diversity of religious belief during the European Enlightenment, and generations before and after.

According to your most recent post to me, your issue now seems to be:

“Your re-occurring theme in your voluminous posts on BioLogos seem to centre on some notion about God doing this or that - this is why I at times have responded to you. Frankly other points you make do not interest me.”

Point 1: My posts are not what I would call voluminous; I would call them quite frequent. I have some of the shortest posts in BioLogos!

Point 2: In my posts which center on “God doing this or that” I try to point out the diversity of BioLogos supporters in what they think can be possible about God’s involvement in the Comos.

Point 3: The Age Old discussion of what is NATURAL and what is SUPER-NATURAL is not something that BioLogos can answer - - because there are so many reasonable Christian interpretations on these matters, which nevertheless arrive at different conclusions.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@deliberateresult

your disagreement is not with me, it is with the TOE itself. Kenneth Miller is not only a theistic evolutionist, he also authors biology textbooks. In his book, “Finding Darwin’s God,” Miller says:

“Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected… mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained… we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out"

@deliberateresult

Okay Joe.

1. Someone decides to define evolution as PURELY NATURAL, with no God.

2. And then BioLogos proposes that God is INVOLVED in the process of Evolution

3. So… what shall we call this God-Guided Evolution?

EVOLUTION + GOD = [ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ] < What?

If you would come up with a word … I will USE that word… and you can stop bothering people.

Obviously Evolution was proposed as a system WITHOUT GOD … but obviously BioLogos teaches Evolution WITH GOD.

In prior posts, I’ve simply called it “God-Guided Evolution” … at least one other participant proposed “EGG” (Evolution-God Guided).

[fmiddel]

@Relates

In terms of what when we are talking about ecology?

You brought up ecology. I didn’t. There are uncountable factors that may or may not include ecological factors.