I think people understand what artifacts are.
Evolution is not an artifact.
Indeed, I donât think there is any question on the meaning of artifact.
I guess I canât speak for your education, Benjamin, but it is certainly what I was taught - by Christian educators, by the way. Moreover, it is the way most if not all are taught the TOE. Consider these two statements from Kenneth Millerâs book, âDarwinâs Godâ: "Evolution is a natural process and natural processes are undirected, " and, âDarwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence.â
Miller is a TE who authors biology textbooks. No fewer than 5 editions of texbooks authored by him declare that evolution works without plan or purpose and is random and undirected. A different biology textbook by a different author(I apologize. I have retained the quote but have somehow lost the reference credit) goes even further: âBy coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of Natural Selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of life superfluous.â Dr. Francisco Ayala, a former domincan priest and prominent evolution apologist said this: âDarwinâs greatest accomplishment was to show that life is the result of a natural process - natural selection - without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.â A 2009 pew research poll gave scientists the following two choices, asking them to identify which of the two resonated with them:
âHumans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selectionâ or âA supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.â Given that stark choice on exactly how they viewed the evolutionary process, 87% chose the former!
Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican observatory has said that even God could not have known the outcome of evolution. Indeed, he is by no means the only TE or EC to make such an observation.
Francis Collins, who had a thing or two to do with the creation of BioLogos confesses at least this much: to believe in the TOE is to believe in a process that gives evidence of being the result of natural processes when he states in his book, âThe language of God,â: âEvolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from Godâs perspective, the outcome would be entirely specified.â
The notion that evolution is the product of purely natural processes goes all the way back to Darwin himself. It was his observation that nature could accomplish the same thing that breeders can accomplish, thus obviating the need for intelligence in the process.
I could go on, but I believe I have played the straight man to your question in a manner that hopefully can satisfy you. Most of the above has come from believers. It is beyond dispute that the TOE speaks to natural processes. Belief in God may add the element of purpose, but belief or non belief is a separate question. Regardless of oneâs spirituality, the notion that evolution is the result of purely natural processes remains intact.
Alas, would that it were so! If it were a notion that could be confined to Dawkins alone, it would be easy to margainalize and dismiss, but it is sadly and obviously not the case. Please see my reply to Benjamin above.
As far as limiting the enterprise of science, I do not accept methodolgical materialism as the âonlyâ way to do science. Moreover, many philosophers of science have a problem with such a forced, rigid, artificial, and metaphysically loaded definition.
Concerning statements by Eugenie Scott, well, letâs just say that to the extent that you do not trust Dawkins, I can say the same for me and Eugenie. Her entire agenda during her reign was to promote evolution and nothing was sacred to that end. Under her, the NCSE actually launched a program to promote evolution using relgious figures in the classroom (so much for the notion of keeping religion out of schools!) and has observed that when it comes to testimonies, pastors who testify in favor of the TOE are far more valuable than scientists. Did she have a vested interest in keeping evolution friendly Christian leaders on her good side? You bet!
You correctly point out that the mechanism is coming under increasing fire, but that would imply that there is a mechanism currently acknowledge by the TOE, would it not? And that mechanism is natural selection acting on random mutations.
I applaud the fact that this woefully inadequate mechanism is being exposed more widely, but it does not change the fact that the TOE is taught as a purely natural process.
You are intentionally being difficult.
People use the word Evolution because it is instantly recognizable.
Please provide us YOUR PREFERRED TERM for the process of âNatural Selection and Genetic Mutation guided by God.â
It does no good to continually fixate on a definition that in its basic form obviously doesnât accommodate or recognize BioLogos.
We need YOUR term for God-driven-Evolution. Will you provide one?
If you do not provide one, and continue to ignore the thrust of my requests (which have been made over the period of several weeks), I will be personally communicating with the Administrators regarding your privileges being suspended from BioLogos.
Now, now, no need to make threats. You will notice that threads do not reach 645 posts without a lot of people repeating themselves ad nauseum and without result. At any point a user is free to decide that engagement with a certain other user is futile and pointless. This is @deliberateresult 's OP, and he is being civil. All the rest of you could decide at any point that this thread is no longer interesting and there is nothing to see here.
3 Likes
Regarding the absurd notion that evolution implies atheism, you writeâŚ
Although it is ahistorical and anti-scientific, Ken Ham YEC, IDers like you, and New Atheists like Dawkins (the YEC-ID-Dawkins axis) insist on sucking us all into the culture war. You are all flat wrong. Thankfully, you all are totally marginalized. No one listens to the YEC-ID-Dawkins axis in science, and the axis has no political power.
This of course raises a puzzling question about you. Do you really wish âthat it were soâ, that evolution didnât imply atheism?
Forgive me if I doubt you. You seem to want to be at war with mainstream science, even when we bend over backwards to accommodate belief in God, creation, and design. You appear to be choosing a false reality, in order to stoke the conflict. It looks like you want war. Maybe you have been lied to? Maybe you are unaware of the truth? But after this thread, it really looks like you want there to be conflict.
For this there is really nothing that can be done. You can continue on in the marginalized YEC-ID-Dawkins axis, making noise for us to ignore and messes for us to clean up. It seems very futile and pointless.
I can only hope that the Prince of Peace whom you rightfully follow will continue His good work in you to completion. I hope someday soon, you can choose peace instead of war.
This of course is a total distortion of my point. Evolution is one of the most wildly successful scientific theories of all of modern science. The fact that you are devoted to arguing against Dawkinâs already flawed and discredited âneo-Darwinismâ is just odd. Science moved on decades ago. It would help if you at least understood the thing (evolution) that you are so devoted to reject.
Eugenie Scott is right to both (1) promote science education for the public (you certainly could benefit) and (2) diligently partner with religious leaders to emphasize the evolution itself is not anti-God. On both points, she is correct and wise. Iâm happy to work with her to explain the God-neutral truth of science. There is nothing in science that threatens Jesus.
@deliberateresult you are promoting an anti-scientific and anti-Christian understanding of evolution. You are pursing war. Someday, maybe, I hope you choose peace.
4 Likes
Hi ChrisâŚ
Please read my OP more closely. No where in that post do I state or even infer that I was taught by YEC zealots, and indeed I was not. The fact is, I was taught by what I now understand to have been TEs. I was taught, and still believe in a universe and an earth that are billions of years old.
Now, please allow me to point to a critical distinction: I do not believe that evolution has to be a purely natural process. I do believe, and have backed up with numerous references, that the TOE specifically teaches that evolution is the result of purely natural processes. The TOE teaches purely natural, non teleological mechanisms; to wit: natural selection acting on random mutations. Any teleological element has been deliberately purged. And when you (and many others here) put the evolution of life in the same category as gravity, chemical bonding, and meteorology, you rubber stamp the notion. The fact that you believe that God is the cause, even the necessary cause, does not take away from the fact that gravity, chemical bonding and meteorology âhappen.â They happen naturally. They happen deterministically. Indeed, they happen predictably. In short, and as Iâm sure you would agree, we do not need to invoke God every time two chemicals bond in nature. This is a key insight into where you and I part ways. If we do not need to invoke God every time matter âbehavesâ according to the natural laws which constrain it, and if we say that evolution works in the exact same way, then we must concede that there is no need to invoke God in the evolutionary process. At best, God is outside the process, having set things in motion and then backing off. It would be nonsense to say that these two chemicals âchose to bond.â Inanimate matter is aimless. It is mindless. Inanimate matter does not make choices. Purpose requires choice. Thus, inanimate matter and the interplay thereof, is mindless and it is purposeless. You and I would agree that there is purpose which is manifested in the establishment of the initial conditions. But that purpose is extrinsic. There is no purpose intrinsic to natural processes (a purposeless process cannot produce an intended result).
On the other hand, information does not happen naturally. It does not come about in deterministic fashion. Indeed, coercion and determinism destroy the potential to create any significant amounts of functional, prescriptive information. The ability to choose freely at each successive decision node is critical to generating functional, prescriptive information. Imagine if each stroke produced on my keyboard were constrained and governed by deterministic laws rather than by my deliberate, goal oriented free choices. There is no way I could ever get this post you! Therefore, the deterministic laws that govern chemical bonding and gravity are woefully inadequate causal candidates for the prescriptive information that undergirds all life.
You are right to observe that scientific theories take no position on matters of faith. However, if we wish to hold an accurate worldview - something that has always been of the highest importance to me - we will allow what is true to inform our worldview. If it is true that we do not need to invoke God in the regular, deterministic interplay of natural processes, and if we are willing to promote the origin and evolution of life as a natural process, then it should be no surprise when we conclude that there is no need to invoke God in the origin and evolution of life.
I do not agree that the origin and evolution of life can be explained by the same causes that explain gravity and chemical bonding. I used to believe it. And when I did, I quite logically realized that I did not need to invoke God. But when I came to grips with the full implications of the truth that life is fundamentally information processing, I also had to come to grips with the fact that, like any information processing system, life requires a Creator, not merely natural processes.
I understand that the folks who run BioLogos like to promote the notion that there is some sort of âwarfareâ mentality going on. There isnât. I do not see science and faith as being at odds with one another. Frankly, I never did. This whole warfare thing is itself a warfare strategy and it is a false dichotomy. The science - the evidence - from life clearly points to the necessity of a Creator. I urge you to consider this evidence.
Chris, I consider you a brother in the Lord and therefore I am grateful for you and your willingness to engage. I thank you for your prayers.
One thing should be obvious to you George: I am not ducking anything. So be assured that I am eager to give you an answer to your question (though you have never addressed any of mine). So maybe you can help me make an informed choice then! Please tell me specifically what you mean when you say âevolution with God.â? How, as you say, is âGod involved in the processâ? I am not clear on this, but once you enlighten me, I will be in a much better position to make the choice you wish me to make.
Thanks in advance
This is true only to the extent that we as human agents have come to the conclusion ⌠by this, I mean that we provide the equations and theories, and measurements, etc., that gives meaning to such assertions. This is where arguments regarding information become vague - one thought experiment may be to try and imagine oneself âoutsideâ nature, and see if nature provides information to a disinterested observer.
This area is fascinating, as it makes human agency central to such discussions. There is speculation, for example, that seeks to show the human observer causes the quantum âwaveâ to collapse to the measurement we would regard as informative. I make these remarks to point out this type of reasoning has a long way to go before we can consider ourselves knowledgeable - and the origins of life are far more complicated than these aspects of science and human agency.
CasperâŚ
Thank you for your patience and please forgive me! I donât know how, but I completely overlooked this post from you. Be assured that I never intend to ignore an honest, thoughtful post.
To answer your question directly, I donât see any reason why God could not have programmed a front loaded evolution. But does the evidence point to such front loaded evolution? Personally, it is a door that I will not close, though I do not see convincing evidence. I do, however, see very clear evidence for the programming of life (as do even atheists) in (among other things) protein synthesis, epigenetic controls, and, as you rightly point out, embryonic development:
âI can actually agree with your answers to a certain extent. The level, sophistication, and precision of the programming required for embryonic development are a clear manifestation of the creativity of our Creator. This âlogic gate sequenceâ operates through natural processes, but is nonetheless indicative of Godâs creative mind.â
Indeed it is! And I would further say that inasmuch as you and I agree that embryonic development manifests the necessity for the role of a Creator, it is this evidence that we should elevate together, and proclaim together. Then, from the common bond of unity in our Creator, we could have a pleasant debate as to whether our Creator front loaded all life with one program or developed a myriad of programs designed to operate on the same basic OS.
The one disagreement we will come to is the very last part of your quote. Perhaps it is a mere question of nuance, but how can you say that a logic gate sequence operates through natural processes? For a successful logic gate sequence to obtain its specific target, wise choices must be made at each individual decision node. Natural law would constrain predictable deterministic outcomes. Successful logic gate sequences are not - cannot be - thus constrained. Successful programming must be free to operate on choice contingency, which is the very opposite of predictable, constrained determinism.
1 Like
Hello Joe,
I am not sure what to make of this discussion. After all these posts, @deliberateresult, you seem to have a fundamental problem with science.
Let me offer an example by describing how this conversation about biology would have sounded like if it were instead about physics. I choose physics because, as you assuredly know, there are physicists who state that the Big Bang can be explained as the result of a fluctuation in a quantum fieldâand therefore it is foolish to believe that there is a God who created it. As far as I can tell, the Joe Palcsak OP would be:
âAstrophysics is opposed to Godâs Word. How can we expect anyone to believe that God created the universe when scientists say it can be explained in purely natural terms! Our kids will fall away! We have to teach them that the universe does not behave according to equations, but instead it reveals Godâs wisdom and power.â
And then Joe would cite all manner of quotes from physicistsâsome of them Christian physicists, can you believe that?âthat describe the universe as behaving in a purely natural manner, which is to say according to mathematical equations such as the Friedmann-LeMaitre equations.
And then Joeâs friends would say, "Actually, Joe, the science of physics does not make any claims about faith matters. Atheists choose to believe that the physics perspective is the only valid one, but as Christians we believe that God created the quantum field out of which the Big Bang arose.
âWe also believe that the universe has a purpose. The science, as we see in the Friedmann-LeMaitre equations and Einsteinâs gravity equations, doesnât describe a purpose. But that doesnât mean the universe has no purpose; it only means that the purpose can not be inferred using the scientific method. In fact, the reason we believe the universe has a purpose is that the Creator has revealed His purposes in His Word, in His interactions with men and women like us, and even, at rare moments, in His interactions with us personally.â
âAnd besides, those Christian physicists you quoted also state that they believe that the universe is created for and according to Godâs purposes, even if the equations do does not offer any proof. You have profoundly misrepresented their faith and their philosophy of science when you leave out their faith perspective, often found on the same page as the passages you quoted.â
âBottom line: the physics perspective and the faith perspective can agree, even if some claim otherwise.â
And then Joeâs response would be:
âHere are some more quotes that prove that the Big Bang can be explained as a purely natural process. Therefore, the Big Bang intrinsically excludes God! How can any Christian agree with the Big Bang?â
Substitute biology for physics, and the theory of evolution for the theory of the Big Bang, and you have everything you need to know about Joe Palcsakâs 128 posts and the 540 replies.
I donât think I can say anything else that you will benefit fromâclearly you have derived no benefit from anything Iâve said in my 34 posts. So I bid you adieu, my brother, and this time I will have the self-control not to bother you any more with my unfruitful words.
Blessings,
Chris Falter
EDIT: If youâd like to talk about anything other than biological origins, I would be happy to do so. You have always been civil, you love God, you work hard for your familyâwe have plenty of common ground.
In fact, if you can think of a constructive way to move the origins discussion forward, Iâm all ears. I happen to be out of ideas on that front.
1 Like
Chris, I donât think you meant this to be a reply to me.
That is correct, Steve. I originally intended to reply/quote a post of yours which was very well-stated, and relevant to what I wanted to say to our friend Joe. Then I decided to go in a different direction, not realizing that the site Javascript would continue to mark it as a reply to you.
Hope all is going well for you in Massachusetts.
Oh my God, please give me strength.
Iâve answered your repeated question every single time.
And now you want to know what I mean with my answer.
Iâm not going to bother to honor your provocations with any more of my efforts to extract YOUR opinions. Iâll let the much more clever people to bang their heads against your âwallâ of immovable thinking.
I do not get the point of this thread George. What difference does it make what @deliberateresult 's personal definition of evolution is? We already know that he has the wrong definition and doesnât want to change it. He does not have the authority or the right to choose the definition that suits him for us or anyone else.
OUCH! You just trapped yourself. I didnât ask @deliberateresult for his definition of Evolution.
He already defines Evolution as UNINTENTIONAL - WITHOUT GOD. More than 80% of the scientists surveyed actually USE this definition!
I specifically asked him what he would call âNatural Selection + Genetic Mutation + at Godâs Directionâ.
He is pretty clear that he wouldnât use the term Evolution. Fine. So what would HE call it?
Because once he finally gives it a name, we can all move on ⌠we donât have to keep hearing him say that the BioLogos position is definitionally wrong.
You following, Swami ?
Why exactly is he entitled to enforce his idiosyncratic definitions on this dialogue? What you are describing is just theistic evolution. If he canât follow that, it is because he is being stubborn. New vocabulary wonât change that.
1 Like
Exactly. If he wonât provide us his terminology, I really donât give a flying hoot what he wants to talk about.
Heâs here as a SPOILER ⌠he is not here to arrive at a conclusion, or develop a synthesis.
He is here to HARASS the LIVING SAP out of anyone who uses the term Evolution without qualifying itâŚ
Our moderators dontâ find this particularly offensive. I think they are just too gentle in spirit.