Ultimately, while we can see evidence of a Creator through evolution, the wonders on nature, and creation through the lens of Jesus, it will never be proof of existence of a Creator. I think that relationship is what proves the the existence of God. When I am beset by doubt, the thing that makes me a believer is the presence of God (Christ) with me, despite the struggle.
2 Likes
This is a really important question that deserves a good answer.
This question cuts to the core of the debate. For many Christians, arguments against evolution builds their faith, giving us confidence that our faith is true. Anti-evolutionist become an epistemology: the reason why we know our faith is true. In this mindset, theistic evolution is particularly dangerous, because directly challenges this foundation, suggesting to many that our faith is false.
For me, I search for confident faith too, but I find a different foundation. I ask: how do I know my faith is true? Is it through science or scientific arguments? Is it through intently studying nature? Or it another way?
I believe that God makes Himself known to the world is through the death and Resurrection of Jesus. This is the âone signâ (quoting Jesus) that God offers to prove that He exists, is unimaginably good, and wants to be known. This is a âsign,â a miracle with public evidence to which we can point (both inside and outside the Bible) when we ask âwhyâ we know our faith is true. For me, the Resurrection is my epistemology.
Of course there is evidence of God in nature, but without Jesus it is hard to appreciate it. Whether evolution is true or false, I follow Jesus because He rose from the dead. Jesus is my starting point, not anti-evolutionism.
What evidence did God leave for us regarding the Resurrection?
There are over 100,000 relevant texts. There is a whole academic field devoted to studying 1st Century Palestine. There are a few holdouts, but even those that reject the Resurrection agree that there is compelling evidence for it. It is without doubt the most substantiated ancient miracle. For example, look at this remarkable dialogue between NT Wright and Sean Kelly (chair of philosophy at harvard) How do you make sense of the resurrection of Jesus? - YouTube. I really reccomend NT Wrightâs masterpiece âthe Resurrection of the Son of Godâ. And for those with short attention spans, this article: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm.
In our scientific world, it is normal to look to science to lead us to God. This is the allure anti-evolutionism and ID. However, we know from Scripture, that God comes to us another way. He comes to us through Jesus.
6 Likes
Steve, good to talk to you.
It might depend on what you mean by âsolid evidence.â In a trial one side claims there is enough evidence to convict, while the other side argues against this.
You use the phrase, the machinery of life. In our experience only intelligent being create machinery. Some people say that random chance over billions of years might produce machines that run according to the laws of nature. In terms of the rules of random chance that is extremely remote as is the possibility that the exact circumstances need for the existence of life are present in this universe.
You might say that this does not prove that there is a Rational Creator God, just that I would not bet against it. We know that there was a beginning of the4 universe, known as the Big Bang. We know that the universe appeared from nothing, no matter/energy, no time, no space. That rules out the universe being eternal or bringing itself into existence. Science cannot say what is on the other side of the Beginning, but it seems to me that a beautiful, rational, orderly universe that supports life and goodness tells me that our world is not an accident, but a world created by a Wise and Powerful self existent Being we call God.
Apparently the one thing you havenât been able to shake from your time as an atheist is a presumption you seem to display that people are dumb if they donât think like you do, yes?
You DOUBT that I believe what I say I believe? OMG ⌠who the heck are you?
If I were to go through the excruciating process of trying to CONVEY why I believe in God, how do you think the conversation would conclude?
You would tell me that my reasons donât make any sense to you, and so you would:
a) doubt my sincerity ⌠or
b) doubt my cognitive abilitiesâŚ
Give us all a giant break, aye Joe?!?!?
I have trimmed down my explanation to the bare minimum - - and you can believe it or not:
a) Consciousness is an epi-phenomenon. It is not the platform of intelligence. It transcends any of that.
b) So I believe in God because I am conscious. I do not think the Universe would need consciousness at all if there was no God.
b) I think God is the source of consciousness ⌠and the source of free-will (which is a bit of a reversal of the usual way Westerners approach God and Freewill).
But my beliefs are rather beside the point. The REAL POINT is that BioLogos is the home for thousands of Christians who believe God influenced/shaped/got involved in Evolution.
That IS their belief⌠no matter how incredulous you are regarding that belief.
I think itâs high time you accepted this as a basic reality of this forum⌠and that you discuss the issues in that context - - instead of constantly calling into doubt the sincerity or sanity of the people you fail to understand.
1 Like
Yes, I understand. But many of us are convinced that Jesus would not want us to saddle ourselves down with a Bronze Age view of the Cosmos, just because thatâs what some Bible scribes believed centuries before the birth of Jesus !
-
Accept rigid firmament (borrowed from pagan culture)? No. Reject that.
-
Accept storage houses for hail and water (borrowed from pagan culture)? No. Reject that.
-
Accept multi-lingual populations started with a confusion of tongues (borrowed from pagan culture) ? No. Reject that too.
I think Jesus was just the one to support rejecting blind tradition, and replace it with sensible observations of nature around us.
There is my first paragraph. You state that you break it down into:
There is your intellectual dishonesty. Your point number one which you say I âconfessâ to is a thinly veiled accusation that Theistic Evolutionists start from a position of atheistic naturalism and then 2. place God over top of the creation process to facilitate our belief in God. This has the sophistic effect of making it appear that Theistic Evolution is based on atheism.
My opening paragraph would be more accurately âbroken downâ as:
- God exists.
- God created the world.
- If something has the appearance of having been created through natural processes, then that thing was created through natural processes.
- The world has the appearance of having been created through natural processes.
- God created the world through natural processes.
I just did.
Stating that EC is illogical, unscriptural and contrary to evidence is tearing down EC.
Deliberately conflating Theistic Evolution and atheism is intellectually dishonest.
I have explained numerous times with scriptural references how Genesis 1 fits with natural history and evolution when interpreted as 7 separate revelatory visions viewed from the surface of the earth. I have also shown how Genesis 2 fits with natural history simply by allowing for a local Eden. I have also shown how the flood story fits with natural history simply by allowing for a local flood. I have further shown how this all fits with the old testament and with the new testament. Seriously, what more do you want? I am starting to think that you donât read my longer posts.
I have also made the argument that literary comparisons become irrelevant if you posit that Genesis is journalism and not literature. If one is simply relating historical fact or inspired revelation, then one is recording history or an oral tradition and therefore not writing literature. If what you are reading is not literature, then literary analysis does not apply. This part is more directed to the moderators than anyone else.
1 Like
This is clear and makes it easier to conduct a useful discussion.
I would start by asking if we both agree on what we mean by âGod createdâ - it may be perceived that âGod created through natural processesâ becomes ambiguous, as it implies the created order, or nature, set by God may be incomplete.
An additional point stems from the proposal by evolutionists and materialists, in that evolution (whatever form or type we discuss), must a priori, be a process that cannot be equated with âGod createsâ - since many of the biologists who have developed the TOE also insist that it cannot be a created thing by God, we are left with a theory that has been extremely controversial, promoted by atheists/materialists, and imbued with such thinking for over a century. EC/TE appear to think they can rescue the TOE from the materialists camp, but they cannot articulate a scientifically coherent alternate TEO that would negate the worldview presented by materialists.
I am not an advocate of ID, but I will credit them with seeking a better outlook, in that they try to formulate an alternative to the materialists - TE/EC does not do this, and it is reasonable to conclude they take the materialists TOE and overlay a âthat is how God does itâ, and then hope for some scientific credibility.
My feeling is that more work is needed to take the thinking of Aquinas into the scientific realm, and a biological paradigm may be developed that incorporates causality (to atheists, this is anathema, as it brings purpose into the scientific realm).
why do you believe that your watch is the result of design?
Virtually all polls show that well more than 80% of the ranks of scientists EXCLUDE God from a role in evolutionâŚ
Thatâs one of the reasons BioLogos has entered into the arenaâŚ
a) to provide comfort to Evangelicals who want to find a harmony between faith in God and the scientific findings about the age of the Earth.
AND
b) to provide inspiration to scientists that there can and should be a role for God in the creation of life on Earth.
As we know from the bulk of BioLogos writings, BioLogos does not attempt to inspire these beliefs in God using scientific evidence âŚ
⌠but by standing astride, like a colossus, with a foot on each of the TWO GREAT CONTINENTS of FAITH and SCIENCE!
I do not think that this is what EC teaches. EC does not teach that natural processes provide a complete description of our origin and the evolution of life. For example, the last time I checked, evolution can not produce an immortal soul.
Rather, creation (including evolution) is not possible without the initiating and sustaining influence of God in this world. Many of us are open to the notion that God might have intervened at times (or even consistently) in evolution. Most of us doubt, however, that science can âproveâ that God intervenes. Moreover, even as we come to peace with the scientific description of evolution, we still regard this is as a woefully incomplete telling of the story. It does not explain everything of importance, and never will.
3 Likes
FWIW:
Most also exclude God as the efficient cause of weather, the changes in pH when titrating buffers and the oxidation of gasoline in car engines.
1 Like
Not to mention gravity (intelligent falling)
I am focussed on what is taken, and taught, as the theory of evolution - I have not heard, or read, of any text book, or lecture, that deals with the TOE that can possibly be taken as theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism - so the point that we should discuss is the theoretical basis and thinking that constitutes TEO. In that spirit, people who participate in Philosophy of Science propose many notions and models for evolutionary areas, be they biology, zoology, genetics, and way out to neuroscience. Their ground, or basis, for TOE is understood as âmaterial, chance activityâ, summarised as variation and natural selection - I cannot comprehend any serious scientist or thinker who would accept this outlook without accepting that basis for this theory.
I do understand that others look at the theoretical basis of TOE critically and point out many flaws and, in an overall view, inadequate against the claims made of it - and many of these flaws are acknowledged even by proponents of TOE. The phrase by Dawkins makes sense - atheists now feel intellectually fulfilled because they have a TOE that is materialistic. They do not care if it is inadequate - we however, should look past this and instead consider how practicing scientists in the bio-fields, can perform solid research without the shackles of the materialistic TOE. It is this encouragement that communities may bring to these endeavours - not some amateurish idea that contributes nothing, and instead continues the discord (e.g. atheists vs theists, TE vs ID, and such).
It is not my wish to tell BioLogos what to do, but George, your language is fanciful (to put it mildly) - any group that simply says God did it, does not stand astride between two continents (whatever that means). Any theory that has as its basis, (a) nature did it, or (b) it just happened by chance, or (a) God dun it that way, is vacuous at best, and silly at worst.
Science only teaches part of the story @GJDS. In evolutionary creation, we believe this story is incomplete.
We see evolution the same way you probably see embryology. Science has a description of how babies are made that includes only natural laws and randomness. Scientifically speaking, this is description entirely excludes God. Yet, we also, at the same time hold that God âknits us together in our motherâs wombâ and that He âknew us from before the foundations of the earth were laid.â These things are true too, and not in the scientific description.
Embryology âexcludesâ God from the definition because science is limited and incomplete. We, as Christians, complete embryology with Godâs revelation to us. This gives us a more complete view.
I imagine (and hope) that you are okay this line of reasoning with embryology. No one is trying to design experiments to figure out exactly how God directly intervenes in utero to knit us. We do not care about this question, because we hold both descriptions to be True.
Why would evolution be any different? To me, evolution is just like embryology.
Hi Joe,
Hope all is going well for you and yours. Like you, I sometimes experience busy periods that make conversations here difficult to participate in; please accept my apologies for the long absence.
Previously in this thread, you stated that you did not have time to read the scientific literature to which I provided links. Moreover, all of your citations, when you have provided them, have been to YEC or ID sites.
Yet you feel qualified to make pronouncements on the contents of scientific literature?
I can assure you that a large corpus of scientific literature exists on the development of novel body plans. If I am not mistaken, one of my links even pointed to a source on this very point.
I want to bring to your attention a Scripture that shook me to the foundations regarding the interaction of science and faith:
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. - Proverbs 18:17
My own experience, Joe, is that as long as I wasnât reading the scientific literature, I was quite comfortable in my YEC beliefs. When I finally decided to listen to geologists and astronomers, I realized that the case for YEC that I had accepted was completely unsupportable.
After that, I spent a decade advocating ID. Again, I was guilty of reading only the literature that supported my views, without bothering to read the other side. I had accepted the case without allowing the other side to come forward and examine it.
When I started reading the tertiary literature in paleontology and biology, though, I realized that the ID case against evolution was extraordinarily weak, while the case for evolution is very strong. In such a situation, I felt compelled as one who testifies to the truth, and the importance of integrity, that I had to figure out how to incorporate biological evolution into my worldview.
I still believe, as you do, that life exists because God, in His wisdom and creative power, willed that it should exist. That is the main point of the first Genesis creation account, in my view: before there were stars, planets, and various forms of life, God said, âlet there beâŚâ
It is possible to believe, with full intellectual integrity, that:
- Biological life points to a living God who created it, and
- He created the universe in such a way that its forces would bring forth the biological life He intended.
Then the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory such as relativity or quantum mechanics, becomes an exploration and explanation of the mechanisms God built into the order of the universe.
I recognize that what I have outlined is very sparse account of science and faith. A scholarly community has developed around the issue. If the issue interests you as much as you say it does, I urge you to read broadly in the field.
Cheers,
1 Like
No, but one encounters a good many theistic evolutionists who deny that God intended any particular outcomes from evolution (for example, being pleased when an intelligent ape evolved, and choosing mankind as a result). Such an approach puts a very different complexion on what âknitting me together in my motherâs wombâ means. Is it any more than âGod created the autonomous natural process that made a person like me possibleâ? If EC does not articulate a clear doctrine of special providence, then the connection between God as Creator and evolution as his tool remains nebulous - and controversial.
Similarly, much ink is spilt, even here, on arguing against the need to believe in a historic Adam, on the basis taht our demonstrable our continuity with our evolutionary ancestors rule it out. But unless that is habitually discussed together with what you say about the inability of evolution to account for an immortal soul, EC is open to the charge that it is in practice naturalistic. Over 6 years here I cannot recall anybody who discounts a historic Adam giving any positive account of how a continuous evolution can be accommodated to the discontinuous phenomenon of âimmortal mankindâ. Though I have heard a number say that we donât need to believe in an immortal soul, given the problems it raises with evolution⌠If not Adam, then what? âEvolutionâ, as you rightly say, is not an adequate answer, but to be taken seriously EC must provide a better one in keeping with the âcreationâ part.
There was violence done, Joe, but not to the Scriptures. It was done to Karl Giberson.
You see, the very next sentence after the partial paragraph quoted by whatever YEC site is this:
âI discovered, however, that this was about where Dennettâs acid ran out of steam (or whatever acid runs out of when it stops dissolving everything). The acid of evolution is not universal, and claims that evolution ârevolutionizesâ our worldview and dissolves every traditional concept are exaggerated.â
Giberson then makes a series of affirmations:
For starters, what eactly does evolution have to do with belief in God as creator? It rules out certain mechanismsâŚbut others remainâŚ
And then:
The central idea in Christianity concerns Jesus Christ and the claim that he was the Son of God, truly divine and truly humanâŚ
And then:
Christianity merges the Incarnation with the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Christâs Resurrection offers hope that we too can have eternal life and one day be united with GodâŚ
The specific doctrines in your list, Joe, are the details of a literal-historical hermeneutic of Genesis 1-3. Do you really wish to claim that favoring the framework hermeneutic over a 6-day literalism is doing violence to the Scriptures?
Do you really wish to claim that the doctrines of Scripture are inextricably linked to 6-day literalism?
A couple of concluding points:
-
In the context of the book, Gibersonâs phrase ânearly everything else I counted sacredâ is a reference to the YEC beliefs that he was so passionate about.
-
This is the second time in this thread that the source(s) you have cited have been shown to cut off quotes in a very misleading way. Clearly, the source(s) is(are) not worthy of your trust, or ours. Itâs time to implement Proverbs 18:17, and find better sources on the relationship of faith and science.
3 Likes
Iâm confused by your comment. Have I not just articulated this clear doctrine of Godâs special providence? Have I not just articulated that natural evolution alone cannot produce an immortal soul?
In my view, evolution is merely an incomplete description of how God formed us from the dust. It tells us nothing about how He breathed a spirit into us. Moreover, it is compatible with a historical Adam and Eve.
And, thanks for your concern, but EC is taken seriously. =)
Amen. The Resurrection and our true experience with Him.
This is enough for confident belief. Why does evolution need to be false also? For me, Jesus is more than enough.
1 Like
Joshua
I was not doubting your affirmation of special providence - just questioning your speaking as if it were the view of all ECs. Iâve been posting here (as I said above) for six years +, have read literally thousands of posts, and articles and books not only at the popular end, but those of the academic âtheoreticiansâ of EC, and have always self-identified as a theistic evolutionist⌠I even had an article on BioLogos, not to mention writing something like 1.5 million words on my own blog. So Iâm scarcely unfamiliar with the field, nor unsympathetic to your own position.
But in practice current theistic evolution appears to embrace (and is perceived from outside to embrace) a very mixed bag of theological positions from Open Theism to Panentheism, Open Process theology, and others, and often to be less than clear as to which it considers valid, and which it doesnât.
It was the academic TE Robert J Russell who described much of contemporary theistic evolution as âstatistical deismâ (he actually suggested it was the default position), and the excellent David Wilcox (a TE long involved in the ASA and with a strong doctrine of providence in evolution who has, as far as I know, never written for BioLogos) who uses the term âsemi-deismâ for what he has observed around him.
So Iâm with you in maintaining that the historic Christian doctrines are entirely compatible with anything that modern science can turn up - but have experienced many instances of being criticised by other TEs when I have waved the flag for some of those doctrines, and most notably that of Godâs providential government of creation. Anti-evolutionism is far from being the only reason many American Evangelicals have issues with Evolutionary Creation (I am in England, by the way, where the culture wars have much less hold).