My ID Challenge

[Chris_Falter]

I agree largely with you here, Eddie.

I think we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on where we draw boundaries between matters of faith and matters of theory. Why is a claim for the resurrection a matter of faith, and not of theory? Why is a claim for God’s determination of outcomes a matter of theory, and not of faith? I’m content to categorize both as matters of faith, and go get a good night’s rest.

Take care, my brother.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Eddie

“I understand a tension between the way randomness is often spoken about in evolutionary theory and the idea of divine providence, but in my heart I feel that at some time in the future – maybe in the world to come – God will vouchsafe to us the mystery of how the two can stand together.”

and:

“The randomness of the evolutionary process is perfectly compatible with the traditional idea of providence.”

The first formulation sounds as if the writer is trying to express a feeling, a hunch, a gut instinct, etc., rather than a thesis; the second statement sounds like a thesis, and just cries out for a critical, academic analysis.

I agree with what you’re saying here, but do you really think this is the place for critical, academic analysis? (Especially when I’m not qualified to do so! haha) I agree with both of the above statements, but I would modify the second one to say that “the apparent randomness in the evolutionary process is perfectly compatible with the Biblical teachings on God’s providence.” There are already many academic analyses out there on the providence of God. I prefer the more recent treatments of the question. Paul Helm does a good job in his book. John Frame likewise in “The Doctrine of God.”

I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. – Ecclesiastes 9:11

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Eddie

If you want to get an idea of the deeper issues that are motivating the various questions by myself, Jon, and others, have a look at the recent divine action series on BioLogos. Compare the offering by Plantinga with the offering by Oord. Which offering, in your view, comes closer to the notion of God – God’s power, activity, sovereignty, providence – that you were taught in church?

Yes, I will. But I offered my view, in simple form and not academically stated, a few posts ago (#717). The Biblical data, to the best of my judgment, says that God is intimately involved in every aspect of his creation, and thus he never “intervenes” in it. He never intervenes because he is always present and always acting in and through his creation. We cannot directly perceive or measure it because God is spirit. The only time we can perceive God is when he condescends to reveal himself to us. That’s about as far as I will go with it now. It’s not finely formulated, so I’m sure it’s liable to hole punchers. Oh well. My views are still evolving.

I understand what you’re saying when you ask for finer definitions. It’s too easy to talk past one another when we’re using terms in different senses than others are reading them. Nevertheless, this is just a discussion board. I think it’s fair to ask for clarification when it aids everyone’s understanding or when a post is unclear, but it’s not really reasonable to ask for academic definitions and specificity just as a debate tool. (Not that you’re doing that. But I’ve seen it done quite a bit when people sense the tide turning against their position.)

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Christy

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.

Praise God for every soul that is saved!

Christie, I have a friend who is the retired chemistry chair at a local college. I suppose his story is like some of the folks you mention here: he almost rejected Christianity because of his YE education, and as he has testified to me, his reconciliation of the TOE with the Bible allowed him to maintain his faith. As you can imagine, he and I have had many spirited conversations. He has confessed that he never considered the informational aspect of life and to his credit, he has been studying that aspect lately.

Here’s my point: this man spent his entire career teaching young minds of every persuasion that life is the result of unguided natural processes. He spent his entire career not considering the implications from the information of life. I have offered not merely my own testimony. I have shared the story of the late Wil Provine. I have mentioned my brother and the story of Lee Strobel. Each of us had our faith “educated” out of us by such teaching, The TOE may have been a factor at one time in allowing my friend to keep his faith, but I cannot help but wonder how many people like Lee Strobel, Will Provine and me were influenced by his teachings. Allow me also to add the story of the late Anthony Flew, one of the most prominent atheist of the 20th century, who became convinced that God exists late in life because of the evidence for a Creator of both the universe and of life.

So again, its always a triumph when someone comes to faith. But if you want to say that your ministry helps people reconcile science and faith, allow me to gently suggest that it would be very helpful to acknowledge the information and molecular machinery that lie at the foundation of all living organisms. It would be helpful to acknowledge the many problems that the TOE is riddled with (the origin of the information of life, ORFan genes, so called convergent evolution, irreducible complexity, etc,etc), and that this list of problems only increases. The evidence points us to what is true concerning the nature of life. Where is it pointing, Christie?

The folks I have interacted with on this site seem, for the most part, to have a visceral disdain for direct evidence for a Creator of life. To reject such evidence leaves a very critical aspect of the science untouched and renders any bond that might exist between the TOE and the Bible tentative at best. When we purposely keep the activity of a God who is very close and very involved in our daily lives at an arm’s length to the point where we will not even allow ourselves to entertain the evidence that is right in front of our faces, we are doing our testimony (and therefore those to whom we testify) a disservice.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

. . . . science, in all cases except those of the Biblical miracles (where science cannot speak at all), must treat nature as a sort of self-contained reality from which intelligent agency is barred, everything running by “natural laws.” But that is not the Biblical view of nature you’ve just outlined. In the Bible, the frontier between God and nature is, so to speak, “causally open.” Again, Jon has written some superb stuff on this.

This is SO!

People who keep resurrecting (< see what I did here ?) the old saw … that if things happen by natural law, it wasn’t because of God . . . is completely futile.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

One of the bizarre things about some EC writing is that the ECs fight tooth and nail against design in nature, arguing that evolution is a messy process filled with accidents and makeshift adjustments, that parts of animal and human bodies are poorly designed from an engineering point of view, that some of the suffering in organisms is so cruel that no wise or loving designer could be responsible, etc. – but then turn around and tell us how much more we should admire God for creating through this cruel, makeshift, and inefficient process rather than through intelligent design and execution!

@Eddie,

Ask yourself how well you have treated those BioLogos supporters who unflinchingly assert God is directly behind the intentional version of Evolution - - aka, God Guided Mutation and Natural Selection.?

I think lots of us would like to know how you see yourself in this role.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

One of the bizarre things about some EC writing is that the ECs fight tooth and nail against design in nature, arguing that evolution is a messy process filled with accidents and makeshift adjustments, that parts of animal and human bodies are poorly designed from an engineering point of view, that some of the suffering in organisms is so cruel that no wise or loving designer could be responsible, etc. – but then turn around and tell us how much more we should admire God for creating through this cruel, makeshift, and inefficient process rather than through intelligent design and execution!

@Eddie

Here’s the paragraph you mention (above). Below are the pieces from the BioLogos belief statement which seems to ALSO criticize the very position you criticize:

We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.

BioLogos OPPOSES what you OPPOSE.

So now you can relax a bit, right Eddie?

BioLogos also clearly distinguishes between DEISM and a lawful Cosmos infused with God’s intentions and actions:

"We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as “natural laws.” Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. . . . "

“In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history. . . God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.”

See more at: The Work of BioLogos - BioLogos

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

And if God ordained them, then what becomes of the self-righteous argument of Miller and Ayala that God would never have designed malaria (so ID must be false)?

According to EC, God ordained a Darwinian evolutionary process which he knew in advance would produce not only malaria but all kinds of other suffering and inefficiency. And he had both the power and the knowledge to create by a different kind of process, but chose the non-teleological Darwinian process anyway. So God willed evil and suffering. How, then, is EC any less guilty of “bad theology” than ID is, when it comes to the existence of evil?

Do you see the consistency problem here, George?

@Eddie,

You are having a CLASSIC problem with Theodicy… One that Atheists use to criticize Theists.

BioLogos has no more special insights on theodicy than any other group of Christians.

This is where I find you discredit your motivations … trying to box BioLogos into this kind of dilemma … when it is the classic dilemma of virtually ALL theists.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

If BioLogos would issue a formal statement, something like: “We disagree with the arguments of Miller and Ayala and some other ECs regarding evil, and we agree that ID creates no more problems regarding the existence of evil than EC itself does,” I would give BioLogos points.

If God ordains an outcome, he’s fully responsible for that outcome. That’s what “ordains” implies. If evolution necessarily produces pain and suffering, and God ordains evolution, then God is responsible for the pain and suffering. It is straight logical reasoning that all undergrad students in philosophy of religion courses learn to carry out. If evangelical Christians with Ph.D.s in biology and physics etc. have trouble carrying out that kind of undergraduate reasoning – well, you draw your own conclusion.

@Eddie,

Why does BioLogos have to SAY it … when YOU are saying it? @beaglelady, am I missing something here?

Isn’t Eddie just trying to have things BOTH ways … so he can be uniquely right and everyone else becomes a bumbling fool?

@Eddie

Does BioLogos really have to lower itself to the lower ranks of intellect in the Christian world in order to earn your respect?

[Socratic.Fanatic]

@Eddie

And he had both the power and the knowledge to create by a different kind of process, but chose the non-teleological Darwinian process anyway. So God willed evil and suffering.

William Lane Craig does an excellent job of explaining the error of this argument. He would say that you are assuming that a more “optimum” scenario was possible. Craig weaves it into an explanation of Molinism where God choose the best possible “reality path” [my term] that would maximize the goals God had in mind—but that we shouldn’t assume that every superlative is always possible. Reality sometimes involves trade-offs and expecting God to bring about what we think are the very best scenarios ignores the fact that not everything is possible for God. (For example, Craig’s favorite impossibility: “God can’t make a married bachelor.”)

I wish I had a good URL link for you but it is after 4am where I am and that’s about my last thought of the day.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

So I’m not blaming ECs for not solving the problem of evil. I’m blaming them for knocking ID people for offering a bad solution, when the EC solution is no better. Now do you get it?

Now I get you, @Eddie.

[deliberateresult (Joe Palcsak)]

@Swamidass

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.

Thanks for the kind words.

@Swamidass

In particular, I would like to hear your response to my comment on the true scientific definition of evolution. You will see that (even though I disagree with ID’s attempt at science) evolution itself is entirely compatible with ID, a point that even the Discovery Institute takes pains to emphasize in their most lucid moments. Notably, Michael Behe himself identifies as a theistic evolutionist. The reason why is this definition:

Swamidass:
The historical, consistent, and scientific definition of evolution is just common descent (CD). There is has been a great deal of debate over the last 150 years about the exact mechanism, and there is currently a “strategic ambiguity” in effect about if God could be part of that mechanism. Science makes no claims one way or the other on God’s action here.

I am glad that you see the problem. There is indeed a mechanism that is put forward, that is taught in schools and proclaimed in the public square: NS acting on random mutations. Purely natural processes. Thus, many contributors to this thread put forward the notion that while they believe in God as the Creator, they insist that His necessary role in the Creation and evolution of life cannot in any way be detected. Herein lies the seed of atheism. Not that they themselves are atheists, but they are promoting a view which elevates so-called “science” to a higher status than belief.

@Swamidass

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.

I would be genuinely interested in hearing the counter you have in mind.

@Swamidass

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.

I would also love to continue with you. In particular, I would love to explore whether you see evidence for the direct activity of intelligent agency in life, and why or why not? I am far less interested in whether you would say that such evidence could properly be called science. As (atheist) philosopher of science Bradley Monton has noted, “The interesting question is not whether ID is science. The interesting question is whether it is true.” Unfortunately at this time I remain more than 100 posts behind on keeping up with responses in this thread, so there is no way I could consider starting a different one. Perhaps after my busy season comes to an end I can catch up in Autumn and entertain something like that. Thanks for your contributions and willingness to dialogue.