If all you have to argue about with him is definitions, then the conversation is over. I do not think he will change. Even if you fight him about it for 100 more posts. Let it go =).
Exactly, @Swamidass
⌠please see this link to this identical conclusion I made FIVE (5) hours agoâŚ
Iâve kept out of this debate for the last 662 comments, but have felt that what is presented as Joeâs sheer stubbornness is at least a valid and longstanding point to recognise.
Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, on publication of Darwinâs theory, opposed it on the very grounds that Joe states: that it denied Godâs providential guidance and hence was essentially atheistic.
His colleague and successor, Benjamin Warfield, embraced the theory as science, by dint of specifically rejecting the atheism/agnosticism implicit in Darwinâs book, and the more overt denial of teleology by influential followers like Huxley. He seems to have concluded that a Christian theory of evolution was a modified Darwinism, not simply blanket agreement with the original.
Hodge and Warfield did not, in essence, disagree - they were simply dealing with different understandings of Darwinism. Fast forward to today, and there are still a good number of âHuxleysâ to suggest evolutionary theory to be necessarily naturalistic to influence education, public perception and even scientific colleagues, even if the official definition is simply âcommon descentâ. (I have to say the word on that seems not to have got out to everyone - Google âmodern theory of evolutionâ or âdefinition of evolutionary theoryâ and see how far you have to look to get to one that is simply âCommon Descent with modificationâ).
In the end, substance is more important than definitions, at least while Larry Moran has to criticise as influential a biologist as Jerry Coyne for building âthe illusion of designâ into his own definition, and the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Science for an âinexcusableâ definition.
But thatâs the same Larry Moran who wonât accept any limitation to science regarding God and evolution:
When you are thinking like a scientist thereâs only one possible conclusion. There is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the history of life on Earth was guided by God. Everything we know about the history of life is consistent with an entirely natural processâone thatâs characterized by chance and contingency. It is perfectly reasonable as a scientist to state this position clearly. This is not stepping outside of the boundaries of science.
I conclude that weâre not yet at the time when one can simply say âI accept evolutionâ without a good proportion of people reading metaphysical commitments into it. Until that changes, is it not helpful to accommodate to peopleâs varied experience and be more specific?
@Swamidass, the above is particularly well-worded, wouldnât you agree?
@GJDS, I hope, understands this explanation. I donât believe @deliberateresult is going to grasp your point.
I believe Iâm reaching the conclusion that âGod-directed descent with modificationsâ âŚ>>IS<<⌠a useful and productive equivalent to my earlier phrase: âNatural Selection + Genetic Motivation + Directed by Godâ.
This is an insightful comment and caused me to ask a simple question, âDo I accept the theory of chemical bonds?â
When I considered this question, I felt like I said something strange. A chemist would not ordinarily think of accepting the current paradigm of his profession, because that is the very reason he finds that discipline interesting and fun. And I would make a similar comment if I was asked, is chemical bonding theistic or atheistic?
It is strange because such a question would not occur to me or my colleagues.
So I wonder why ToE is so saturated with other commitments, be these metaphysical or religious or anything else for that matter?
My view is that such âbaggageâ was part of the inception of ToE, and it has continued to be so to this day.
2 Likes
Actually, that is not true, George. Many of the (substantive) conversations I am having here are with people who see evidence for God in the establishment of the initial conditions. You need to read Denis Lamoreauxâs BioLogos article, âWhat is Evolutionary Creationism.â
Beyond that, George, the foundation of Christian faith is evidence based. See 1 Corinthians 15. Moreover, the Apostle Peter tells us to always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is in us ( 1 Peter 3:15) and the Apostle Paul urges us to test all things ( 1 Thessolonians 5: 19).
Frankly George, your insistence that evolution is true and we must take Godâs role in the process purely on faith comes across this way to me and to many others: âBelieve in the natural process of evolution as an explanation for life because of the hard evidence and believe that God was involved in the process, but donât you dare think there is any evidence of his involvementâ
I believe that you do not intend to do so, but championing such a position plays right into the worldview of atheism. It says, in essence, that so-called science is primary and believe in God is optional. And, yes George, such an outlook will indeed cause believers to think twice about what they believe to be true.[quote=âgbrooks9, post:580, topic:4944â
My goodness, George! You are talking to someone who did exactly that! My belief that evolution is true made me realize that I could no longer believe in God. The same is true with my brother and many others (some of whom I know personally) to include Lee Strobel (see his book, "The Case For a Creator), who, like myself and my brother, was rescued by the plain evidence for design in life. Unfortunately this list also includes people like the late Wil Provine who was never rescued and successfully evangelized many believers into atheism, using the âfactâ of evolution.
Your many posts to me have focused on your own personal indignation at what I am putting on the table and most of your efforts have been to impugn my motives and accuse me of stirring up disputes. I am done with it. I came here with (like it or not) what has been in my life - what I have lived out, and know others to have lived out as well - a very real problem. I am here to discuss these problems. If you want to address the issues, I am more than happy to continue a conversation with you. But I am done indulging your indignation and motive mongering.
And one more thing: as I have said before, your excessive use of bolds, all caps, and highlights does nothing but annoy.
Good day.
Ah, Chris. I have indeed demonstrated my familiarity with the articles you cited and have responded to the substance of those articles. Feel free to address me on what I have written on those subjects.
In the meantime, I am begging no question here. Simply put, my position is that all of the evidence suggests intelligent agency as the only reasonable causal candidate for molecular machinery that manifests technological sophistication beyond what we are currently able to achieve. I see this as an entirely reasonable position. If your view is different, by all means, letâs engage. But please drop the naked appeals to authority. I want to have an actual conversation with you.
I have noticed that some of your posts to me are very cordial. Others, such as this one, wellâŚnot so much. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I have never asserted that I âcan proveâ the position I am defending. I have merely stated that intelligent agency rises as the most reasonable causal candidate. There is a big difference. Please do not make assumptions about me that you have no idea whether they are true or not, such as:[quote=âChris_Falter, post:582, topic:4944â]
And here we return, once again, to your strong resistance to reading the scientific literature. You are making a very strong assertion about what that literature (which you have never read)
[/quote]
I simply requested that you not give me reading assignments in the course of our conversation. That does not indicate any resistance - let alone strong resistance - to reading the scientific literature, nor does it even indicate that I have not previously read the particular articles you gave me to read. Indeed, if you review my reply to those articles, you should notice my familiarity with them.
As I have said, you are my brother in Christ. We can disagree and we can engage in honest dialogue. But there is no need for either of us to paint the other with a false brush.
Well, thanks for the kind words. Nevertheless, a few points:
- whatever ârulesâ you perceive me to be approaching science with, the real question should be, is the point I am making true? Surely anyone who wishes to engage on those grounds should be able to provide an effective counter.
- If I am misrepresenting EC, please tell me in what way I am doing so.
- I did indeed respond to your answer to my OP. Though that answer can be found under ârepliesâ to that answer, here is a copy-and-paste of it. If it was unsatisfactory, I will be happy to try again:
"Amen, brother!
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."
My OP put my personal story on the table in the form of putting an honest problem on the table. In my view, this problem has been largely met with indignation and denial, though I am certainly grateful for the willingness to engage. So if you want to be done with me, thatâs fine. I thank you for your time and engagement. It is your right to terminate the conversation at any time. But please, do not do so under the pretense of condescension.
I suppose one could think of theories you might have to make a decision on - like string theory, or quantum theory back in the 1920s (because itâs counterintive) - or whether to abandon phlogiston in the light of Lavoisier. But thatâs just a question of science.
The only parallel I can think of woiuld be whether to accept Newtonâs gravity, because action at a distance was considered unscientifically occult. Even then, it was really a question of science. Itâs hard to think of a theory thatâs been so tangled with metaphysics since it began as ToE.
If I may intrude for a moment ⌠Joe, it seems to me that your concerns have more to do with apologetics than anything else. You say you returned to the faith because you were convinced of the truth of the resurrection. If that is true, I think you are getting too swept up in your argument when you say that you were rescued by the evidence for design in the origins of life.
Along those lines, it is significant that you list 1 Cor. 15 in discussing evidence for the Christian faith. We should learn from Peter, Paul, and the evangelists. Their primary apologetic evidences are the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in fulfillment of Scripture. Yes, we should always be prepared to offer a defense of the hope that is within us, âyet with gentleness and reverence.â (Offered to all, not singling you out.)
I would caution you not to make your own story of (temporary) loss of faith normative. Satan attacks faith at its weakest point. For some, it is the flesh, but for others, it is the intellect. You are obviously a smart guy, so it should come as no surprise that your personal crisis of faith involved an intellectual difficulty. It happened to involve evolutionary theory, but if not that, some other intellectual objection would have raised its ugly head.
When you say âall of the evidence suggests intelligent agencyâŚâ, you are stepping into dangerous territory, and one that I would suggest also plays right into the hands of atheists. âAllâ is a big claim. All it takes, so to speak, is a few counterexamples to discredit such a claim, and then all the young Christians who were taught in Sunday School that âall of the evidenceâ is on their side will be suddenly cast into their own crises of faith. I hope you see the problem.
Not to give you another reading assignment, but I encourage you to read Pascal, who points out the problem with your approach, which seems common to many other proponents of Intelligent Design. To paraphrase Pascal, even if someone were convinced that the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning of its constants, the origin of life, the inner workings of the cell, etc., all required an intelligent designer, called God, I should not consider that he had made much progress towards his salvation.
âThat is why I shall not undertake here to prove by reasons from nature either the existence of God, or the Trinity, or the immortality of the soul, or anything of that kind: not just because I should not feel competent to find in nature arguments which would convince hardened atheists, but also because such knowledge, without Christ, is useless and sterile. ⌠If the world existed in order to teach man about God, his divinity would shine out on every hand in a way that could not be gainsaid ⌠What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence, of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God. Everything bears this stamp.â â Pascal
In short, Christian theories about origins certainly serve a purpose, but I would suggest that they play only a secondary role in apologetics: attempting to resolve intellectual difficulties that are barriers to faith. The primary apologetic remains what it was in the beginning: the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus in fulfillment of Scripture. Your own experience bears this out.
5 Likes
Extra like. 
1 Like
Quantum mechanics is more recent.
Older theories:
Vitalism.
Biological reproduction (even today if you talk about human souls).
Many early theories of psychology.
Pre-scientific medicine.
1 Like
Well the natural order is Godâs work and I think that that is evident enough. But there is a great danger in depending on any of the particular things you mentioned. The mind (and intentionality along with it) in particular is in imminent âdangerâ Of being described in scientific terms. When you go out and say to someone that the mind Can only be explained by God, that is God of the gaps because you are saying that the mine could never have a natural scientific explanation. Creation is a gap. The gap that bioLogos is most concerned with, and that gap was filled (partly) with evolution and cosmology. A lot of people lost their faith over that, And more people lose their faith over that every day. All because they expected to find God in the natural order and then he wasnât there.
I think pointing to any particular thing about the world and saying that God is responsible for it directly and there is no natural cause is functionally equivalent to attempting to build a stairway to heaven. You may get a long way but in the end youâre going to be disappointed.
In my mind the idea that everything has a natural explanation is a witness to the glory of God. The human creator smudge the edges and leave gaps, because all human work is imperfect, but when God create something he doesnât go halfway. There are no errors or omissions in creation where God has to stick his finger in the gap in order to keep it all together. When you look for gaps you put God in a box. This is one place where atheists and Christians should agree.
To recap I agree that Godâs work is found in the natural order apart from the miraculous. That is because the natural order is Godâs work. And while we might identify a human creator by the flaws in his creation, we identify a creator God by the completeness of his.
But ultimately we canât get caught up and forget that God controls the very fabric of our reality. Everything we see and experience comes from God and God alone. Even our interactions with other people would be not possible without God continuously sustaining our reality. When we do science we only see what God shows us, so science shows us the consistency and complexity of our worldly experience but can tell us nothing about the ultimate nature of reality. To claim that science can show us ultimate reality the polar opposite of God of the gaps, a science of the gaps if you will, and equally hazardous. Since science relies on observation, it can never tell us whether our observations are accurate or give a complete picture of reality.
Atheists usually try to conflate reality with the observed, even though this is a grievous assumption. I agree the world is not a closed material system. In fact it is not material at all. When you pick up a cup and look at it, you arenât seeing a physical cup that is part of the material universe; you are seeing God.
1 Like
DeliberateResult, I think you must be getting me confused with your many rhetorical combatants.
I do not take a âdonât you dareâ approach. I simply have no expectation that there is any scientific evidence for Godâs role.
While I myself DO have unscientific evidence that I think is reasonable and compelling.
As for your troubles with Atheism, I am sure there are others like you. But maybe with BioLogos, there will be fewer and fewer. I think you can see how ardent I am that we use a definition of Common Descent that ALLOWS for Godâs role⌠rather than definitions that make no room for Him.
You write: âYour many posts to me have focused on your own personal indignation at what I am putting on the table and most of your efforts have been to impugn my motives and accuse me of stirring up disputes. I am done with it. . . . I am here to discuss these problems.â
Oh?! Frankly, I find this extremely difficult to believe. Iâve pleaded with you to offer your discussions. And what you do is duck my question and ask me another one.
I believe you are here to raise havoc. You certainly havenât indulged me ⌠you have done nothing but ignore me until this particular posting. Itâs okay. Go back to ignoring me. Iâve already made it clear that I can no longer be your foil.
The origins of scientific theories (an intentional pun can be found 
) have been entangled in all sorts of âmetaphysicsâ and the occult. The difference that I see wrt ToE is the other theories were eventually ârescuedâ by mathematical treatments - this placed the theories on a quantifiable basis and tests could be carried out without appealing to the occult or deities. An additional observation is that with, say chemistry and physics, those who made breakthroughs were more often praised and not destroyed (there are exceptions to this, including a few tragic cases) - ToE however seems to have a following that will fight tooth and nail against such breakthroughs (which speaks to its metaphysical appeal), However, ToE ultimately must deal with the origins of life, and quantify observations, and I feel that task is far more difficult than we may realise - perhaps far more difficult than QM.
Hello Joe,
I have to agree with Swamidass and George. Look at how you equivocated between âTOEâ and plain âEvolution.â Just word games.
1 Like
Hello Joe,
Iâm not seeing any evidence that you or any of these people have been or are becoming âconvinced by the evidence.â Itâs all rhetorical, not empirical.