Would it help you if I said God has controlled, is controlling, and will control all natural processes.
And here I was thinking that ID just said life was “designed” with no mention of a creator. The quest was just to prove design and not a creator. At least in the “Big Tent” version of ID.
And yet you refuse to believe that a Christian could accept the TOE which implies that anyone who does is not a Christian.
And you have never answered (that I noticed) the question of rolling dice. Does God determine the outcome of a roll of the dice or not?
The problem I would like to get across to my brothers and sisters here at BioLogos by sharing my own testimony is this: As a young man with questions and doubts, my embrace of the TOE logically meant my rejection of the Bible. At that point, God was dead to me. God did not exist. It was fruitless to seek Him, to seek evidence for Him, to investigate the life of Jesus. None of it mattered because the Bible was wrong - dead wrong - on life. The credibility of the Bible was destroyed.
I began researching ID as an atheist. My motives were frankly notorious. I wanted to learn the arguments of ID, so I could counter those arguments effectively. What I found, to my surprise, was a much stronger case for the cause of life than what I had been taught in school. ID did not bring me to Christ, but it brought me to the realization that I had a Creator. At that point, I had a burning desire to know anything I could about my Creator. So I began to research God really for the first time in my life at age 50.
Ultimately, a year later, it was the evidence for the Resurrection that brought me to the cross. Sadly, though, many do not get to that point. Many remain at that dark moment when, having embraced the TOE - a necessary pillar of metaphysical materialism - they realize that the Bible cannot be trusted, and simply walk away for good.
Dennett was right: the TOE is a universal acid that eats through everything. Provine was right: evolution is the greatest engine for atheism ever invented. Dawkins was right: darwin did make it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
I have come here to open the eyes of my brothers and sisters. There is no witness in the TOE. There is, however, good, solid evidence that cannot be overturned, that life is the result of a Creator. The former does indeed have the power to turn believers into atheists. The latter has the power to prevent that from ever happening.
It looks like you and I are both guilty of talking past each other. Allow me to attempt three gentle points here and let’s see if a substantive conversation can unfold:
You are focusing on Genesis. You offer one interpretation. Maybe your interpretation is right. Maybe it is wrong. My young earth brothers and sisters have a very different interpretation than you do. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. I do not see Genesis in exactly the same way that either of you do. I could be right or wrong.
The point I am making has never been confined to the Genesis Creation account. The point I am making is that Scripture - from Genesis to Revelation - declares that an essential attribute of God is His direct and very deliberate Creation of life in general, and mankind in particular. If you don’t believe me, do a Strong’s search on the words 'formed," “created,” and “made.” Furthermore, we can know and rest assured that He is God because of this. It is this truth that is in direct conflict with the TOE. Which brings me to…
When I observe that the TE believes that the origin and evolution of life are the result of purely natural processes, I am only reporting what the TOE teaches. Therefore, if you do not agree with what the TOE teaches, by all means please proclaim it! Understand that I am not questioning your belief in God. But if you do believe what the TOE teaches, then please consider that your charge against me that my observation is an “accusation that Theistic Evolutionists start from a position of atheistic naturalism,” does indeed acknowledge the relationship between the TOE and atheistic naturalism. After all, I said no such thing.
I want to highlight a nuance. You said, “Stating that EC is illogical, unscriptural and contrary to evidence is tearing down EC.” What am tearing down specifically, is the TOE. I have made the point that it is illogical to believe that both the Bible and the TOE are true, and I have exposed the logical fallacy. It is the TOE that does not square with Scripture. It is the TOE that is not supported by the evidence. Therefore, if you are saying that EC is a full embrace of both the Bible and the TOE, then I guess you are correct to say that I am tearing down EC. I am hopeful that you do not fully embrace the TOE, but if you are, then I am indeed accusing you of logical incoherence because an unguided process (the TOE) cannot produce an intended result (God’s Creation of mankind).
There is good, solid, unshakable evidence for a Creator that is manifest in all life. This is what every Christian should be celebrating and proclaiming.
I understand that this is what the EC believes. However, according to the Dennis Lamoreaux article defining EC that BioLogos offers, it is clear that the evolution of life is a natural process, having been seeded in the initial conditions of the physical universe. As long as this is the bedrock, anyone - including even the EC - can see the unfolding of natural processes as, well, purely natural. Like it or not, confining God’s activity in the Creation of life to the establishment of initial conditions, leaves any trace of that activity - as Lamoreaux says - a mystery.
More than one contributor to this forum has offered that the process of life is exactly like the process of rain. This is not true and it encapsulates the error of EC. Life is based on functional, prescriptive information. Life is fundamentally formal, not physical. Life is a physical manifestation of formal information. Physical manifestations of formal information are always the result of a mind; can only be the result of a mind. This is direct evidence for the necessity of a Creator of life, and this is great news for Chrsitians. But by insisting that the seeds of life were in the initial conditions, EC does not allow or acknowlege this direct evidence. This is bizzare and dangerous. Based on everthing we know and understand to be true about the informational nature of life as well as everything we know and understand to be true about natural processes, an inanimate but life permitting universe will never bring forth life without the direct intervention of intelligent agency.
The atheist, likewise insists that the seeds of life were in the initial conditions and does not acknowledge the direct evidence from the information of life. By restricting God’s role in the Creation of life to the initial conditions and any involvement thereafter a “mystery,” the EC carves out an uncomfortably large field of agreement with the atheist. By restricting God’s role in the Creation of life to the initial conditions, the EC has given himself permission to embrace the TOE. And of course, to embrace the TOE is to accept that no direct evidence for a Creator can be considered.
Your distinction here does not reflect anything known to science. Yes, you can describe life as a physical manifestation of formal information. You can also describe rain as a physical manifestation of formal information. Neither description provides what you want, which is a guarantee of intelligent design.
Again, these are not things known to me as a scientist. I don’t know where one comes by this knowledge, but it is not from a study of biology or physics.
Ha! Same thought here. If a post is too long, I have trouble following it to the end unless the writer is very clear in their posting. I wish people who have several points would present one or at most two per post so as to make it easier to follow their logic.
why its make any different? its actually worse because if its difficult to an intelligent designer to make a small genome- it just make the case of intelligent design stronger.
but the flagellum and a lot of other molecular machines are indeed look like a man made machines:
“More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human” (David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998))"
You do realize that we get plenty of similar but opposite testimonies here, where people are atheists (or disillusioned Christians in danger of deconverting) and they show up at our website wondering if it is possible to reconcile mainstream science (something they aren’t inclined to give up on) with faith. The fact that this is possible pushes them to further pursue God and find Christ. We’d be a pretty crummy ministry if we weren’t actually helping people get into the Bible and strengthen their walk with God. To listen to you, you’d assume all these Christians are showing up here and deconverting because of the scientific information we present. That’s not really what is happening, whether or not you can reconcile the reality with your personal experience.
Unfortunately the computer yells at you if you post too many things in a row and tells you to consolidate your responses. I think the solution (in addition to trying to be more disciplined and concise) is to include lots of quotes so everyone can see what you are responding to. (For any uninitiated users reading this, to quote someone else, select the text in their post and click on the “quote reply” option that appears.)
We aren’t going to go over the flagellum arguments AGAIN. This is what I’m talking about, and why you are going to end up getting blocked if you don’t start taking it seriously. How many times have you brought up the flagellum on this site and how many times have people explained why this is not a compelling argument? Stop bringing it up. It is a waste of everyone’s time.
Here is me talking to you in September 2015:
To refresh your memory (on just the first ten I found) of your past flagella conversations, here you go:
Thank you for two honest responses to my questions. This really encourages me that we might be able to have productive dialogue with the goal of “understanding and being understood.” I do not know if you will agree with me in the end, but his goal might be achievable.
I once again want to thank you for, at least with me, refraining from calling me an atheist or adopting atheistic evolution. That would honestly antagonize me. Your restraint here is noted. I also agree with your discomfort with more “deistic” explanations of evolution. I tell the story differently, with a more “theistic” angle that I imagine you appreciate.
To be clear, I do 100% acknowledge that the popular definition of evolution is nearly synonymous with evolution. However, this is not the scientific definition. I think this distinction matters. If I am right, this is a way of countering atheistic evolution with the full support of science behind your back.
Now from here, I would like to continue the conversation with you, if you are interested, but not a part of this thread. This thread has become a beast I do not want to feed.
If you are interested in conversing further on all this, consider starting a new thread with an appropriate title. Perhaps, “common ground between ID and TE” or “must ID come before Jesus?”. What do you think? Are you up for a change of “venue”?
Because of you, Joe, I can NEVER EVER state that I support the “Theory of Evolution” - - because you have made it tediously clear (but I guess I can’t fault you for being correct) that the scientific position on the Theory of Evolution is a process WITHOUT GOD. It’s an unavoidable conclusion. But it does make it a little inconvenient when trying to quickly summarize some facts when BOTH SIDES know that I mean “with God too”.
But … okay… I need to be PRECISE. And so I cannot simply nod my head in agreement to your statement: “Obviously you believe that the evidence supports the TOE.”
BUZZZZZZZ!!! <<< There… now I have a buzzer to warn all people involved that a word is being used poorly.
THIS IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE:
The EVIDENCE shows that the Earth is MILLIONS of years old… not 5000 years old.
It is CONCEIVABLE that Evolution over these millions of years has happened without God, but this is not what I believe is the case.
My belief is not based on observable natural phenomenon. It is based on my assessment of a Universe Without God vs. With God.
I am truly doubtful that we will ever find a scientific way to prove God shapes/causes one or more episodes of Evolution.
hi christy. i actually never meant to discuss about the flagellum. i just gave this as an example of something that is very similar to a human made object. something that glipsnort claimed that will be evidence for design. i can give a lots of other examples like a camera-like eye, or an airplane-like wings and so on…
And Christy’s point is that many people demonstrated to you that the flagellum was not evidence for design.
Cameras are not designed like the human eye. They are constructed differently; almost in reverse in fact. They are constructed so they don’t suffer from the blind spot which the human eye has, and they’re more efficiently organized. Airplane wings do not work like bird wings; they do not flap, they do not have interlocking feathers which separate on an upstroke and close up to generate lift on the downstroke. The use a completely different airfoil, and a completely different and more efficient method of thrust.
Agreed. Psalm 138:8
The Lord will vindicate me;
your love, Lord, endures forever—
do not abandon the works of your hands.
Incorrect. You are not reporting, you are redefining. You are defining “natural processes” as being atheistic processes, or processes that by definition (your definition, not anyone else’s) must occur without God’s control. You are in fact equating TE with TOE because you think to do otherwise is to put people’s souls at risk.
You are defining the TOE as being by definition incompatible with God, and then using this as a club to tear down EC. Your motive for this can be deduced by traveling back in time to when the world was new, 599 posts ago, and you said:
[quote=“deliberateresult, post:1, topic:4944”]
God was not necessary, and therefore, must not exist.
Then you said:
Then you said:
Dude, your crisis is ongoing. Your challenge is to prove the existence of God to an unwilling audience, which means that your challenge is an impossible waste of time. The Bible tells me so. If someone seeks God, they will find him:
Matthew 7:7 [ Ask, Seek, Knock ] “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Luke 11:10 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
On the other hand, if someone has decided to reject God, then they cannot be brought to God against their will, no matter how compelling the argument.
Proverbs 21:24 The proud and arrogant person—“Mocker” is his name— behaves with insolent fury.
Proverbs 15:12 Mockers resent correction, so they avoid the wise.
Proverbs 14:6 The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.
Proverbs 9:12 If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.
Proverbs 9:7 Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults; whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse.
Matthew 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
So, what you have done, is to set up an impossible task, to convince “young Joe” that there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. This is impossible because “young Joe” wants to believe that there is conflict between the Bible and evolution. “young Joe” will redefine terms at his whimsy to ensure that his definition of evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Why “young Joe”, why? Why do you insist on defining terms such as “natural processes” in such a way as to exclude God’s control of them? Why do you define the TOE in such a way that by definition it excludes God’s control of evolution, and then stubbornly refuse to allow for a definition of TE that allows for God’s control of evolution? Why would you be so arbitrary and unfair “young Joe”? Why would you insist that without scientific proof of the necessity of God, no one can believe in God, when that argument is itself not biblical and contrary to Jesus’ teaching that he is knocking on the other side of the door, waiting to be let in? Could it be, “young Joe” that you really really want to go to a kegger this Friday, but you cannot reconcile standing outside someone’s open garage door for 6 hours in the dark, holding a red plastic cup full of Milwaukee’s Best, you just can’t reconcile it with your strict YEC upbringing, so you’ve decided to just CHUCK IT, CHUCK IT ALL for the next 30 years and then come back later to Christianity? Oh, “young Joe”. . . you terrible terrible sinner you. . . do you realize that you are officially just as bad as EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN WHO WENT TO COLLEGE AND HAD THEIR FAITH SHAKEN 'cause of beer and then come back to Christianity later. Incidentally, that includes about 98% of Christians who go to college. Also, I’m pretty sure that somewhere in the Bible it teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but don’t quote me on that.
So anyway, my advice to “old Joe” would be to stop looking for an irrefutable argument for God’s existence. God himself does not want such an argument to exist. Instead, look right around the corner, maybe on this very website, for 4 or 5 biblically consistent arguments that prove that God is logically able to exist. Someone who is seeking and knocking only needs permission to believe in God, they don’t have to be forced by an irrefutable argument to believe in God. Someone who rejects God, if faced with an irrefutable argument, they would just deny evidence or change definitions or put their fingers in their ears and go on doing what they have decided to with their God given free will.