@Eddie, you are getting bogged down.
I use the MOST unpredictable situation possible - - humans reacting to an unlawful chain of events - - to show that it is still in God’s hands to front-load.
Before there are creatures with consciousness and a presumption of freedom, we are left only with unpredictable quanta … which doesn’t appear to have much to do with the cosmic orbital patterns of galaxies.
You can’t follow my response? Let me choose some different words:
If God cannot cope with the combination human volition AND non-lawful sequence of events - - then @Jon_Garvey’s point is carried.
It would be a waste of time for me to focus on the stage of evolution where volition does not yet exist.
So for you to penaiize me for selecting a more recent phase of evolution is, shall we say, somewhat officious.
George
As far as I remember “frontloading” was the term coined, and the concept pioneered, by Mike Gene in The Design Matrix, as a way that scientific naturalism and divine design could be combined. It was therefore expected to make empirical predictions that efficient causes could be found that would show evolution to be, in fact, deterministic. That is, all the information necessary for God’s specific outcomes, including mankind, was inherent in the first life, and indeed the Big Bang.
To use it as a theological answer to ontologically stochastic events defeats the object - to say that “you’ll ultimately never know what kind of universe we are in” is to say that frontloading is an erroneous, and useless, concept, scientifically.
Theologically, though, the concept is also redundant speculation, because we cannot know the mind of God. But as I said to Mike Gene in another conversation on his blog, to picture God as “mentally” designing an infinite number of contingent universes, and then choosing the one that suits his purposes, is conceptually no different from God simply designing the universe that suits his purposes as an engineer would. One simply doesn’t need all the others, any more than one does in the related concept (championed speculatively by Bilbo, who still posts here sometimes) that God actually created all the alternative universes in a multiverse, but (in some way) only carries this one through to completion because it’s the only one containing mankind as he desired it to be.
Of course, it’s conceivable that God creates absolutely everything and then follows some kind of anthropic principle in preferring the corner of reality he likes amongst the infinity, but it takes no wisdom, even if it consumes infinite power.
One theological problem is that all those supposedly free/random choices made by the infinite versions of me or you have never existed (unless Bilbo’s speculation was astonishingly correct) - and what doesn’t exist can’t make free choices, because it is never even given the freedom to exist. Only the real you and me exist, and to use the libertarian’s (dubious) criterion of free-will, “it was never possible for us to decide differently”.
One can avoid that problem by taking the classic theological line that God created us with true freedom and yet our choices are ruled by God’s providence, without any need for the alternative non-universes. And that accords with the classical doctrine that God does not create, or know, by endless deliberation, but by knowing all things intuitively because they all come from him anyway.
But although we can, perhaps, never know how God did things, the bottom line is that God determines the outcomes of evolution either by scientific frontloading (which we seem to agree is more or less impossible given the current understanding of science), or by his secret providence in directing stochastic events, it being unknowable (and therefore futile to argue) whether he did so by directing chance, or by creating the one possible universe that randomly directed itself according to his direction, after he had first created randomness in order to … release the universe from his direction.
“You can have any universe you like, so long as it’s black.”
Oh, I agree that it is a “useless concept scientifically” … which is no surprise for any THEOLOGICAL or METAPHYSICAL description about the cosmos.
But ERRONEOUS? Ha. How would you ever know if a metaphysical statement is ever erroneous?
It could be internally inconsistent, or illogical, or just bizarre. Or it could be erroneous with respect to revealed theology. Metaphysics may not be amenable to empirical study, but it isn’t just imaginative rambling.
On the other hand, metaphysical statements can be useful, or even indispensible for science. Our science depends on a metaphysics of material and efficient causation, unwittingly encompasses degrees of formal and final causation; it requires a belief in the metaphysical questions of logic, and in the consistency of the universe, and of the reason which explores it, to name but a few of science’s metaphysical underpinnings.
Hi Richard…
I speak here from personal observation, and this is by no means a major point, but at least from my perspective here in the states, that is how it looks to me. I do not know of any Christian church that lists belief in the TOE as essential doctrine, and certainly hope that there is none. Therefore, if a pastor or board of elders decides to endorse such a belief, I do not think that one can view such an endorsement as a church wide concensus. For example, while you note that evolution is an “official” position of the catholic church, yet according to a recent PEW research poll, 30 percent of catholics do not believe in evolution. I have excellent reason to believe that a strong majority of ID proponents and virtually all YECs see a clear conflict between the truth claims of the TOE and the Bible (and please note that I have specified the TOE, not some other sort of vaguely defined view of a guided evolution). Therefore, I think it is very inescapable that this view of incompatibility is very strong even within Christianity, and even stronger among non-believers. But in the end, it’s ok that you don’t see it this way. It is not a key point of mine anyway.[quote=“Richard_Wright1, post:853, topic:4944”]
a position that requires - just as YEC does - a very specific interpretation of Scriptures
I’m wondering what that interpretation would be. An EC can hold to both the Framework Theory or the Day Age Theory for interpreting Genesis 1.
[/quote]
You have answered your own question. As far as I understand, both the framework theory and the day age theory are recent doctrines of men, motivated not in the least through inspiration, but wholly as an attempt to reconcile Scriptures with a current understanding of the natural world. Neither takes into account the high literal view and ultimate authority Jesus accorded to the Scriptures.[quote=“Richard_Wright1, post:853, topic:4944”]
The only proclamation of scripture off the top of my head that I don’t hold that you do is an historical Adam
[/quote]
given that it is a proclamation of Scripture, I am curious as to why you do not believe it and am wondering how you view Genesis 5:5
I see these sort of things as well Christie, but back when I believed that life emerged and evolved from matter, I did not. Nor did I see any reason to even look for such things because what I believed - what my Christian biology professors taught me - to be true was a completely different narrative of life than the one offered by the Bible. It was only when I realized that the evidence from life points directly to the necessity of a Creator, that I came to terms with the fact that there even is a Creator.
Of course, this is what I have been saying all along. Therefore when I talk about direct evidence for a Creator of life, I am saying that this direct evidence resides in living organisms. So I would be more than delighted to learn what you consider to be direct (as in, from living organisms) evidence that life requires a Creator?
Hi Jonathan. Forgive me for intruding, but here is my insight from personal experience: Most of today’s atheists, like myself, were raised in Christian homes. A good number of these atheists left the faith specifically because they saw that the TOE, which they were assured is true, makes truth claims that are mutually exclusive of the truth claims of the Bible. If one is true, the other must be false, and since the TOE is true, the Bible must be false.
Thus, there exists today a good number of atheists who experienced a very real tension between holding onto their Christian faith and their belief in evolution, realizing they needed to jettison one or the other.
So what if some ministry were to exist which, clearly but gently, would try to explain to Christians that there is actually no need to jettison one or the other? What if that ministry would propose modes of interpretation that are closer to the intended message of the Scriptures, informed by the background of the original audience? What if that ministry would clarify why perceived tensions between science (including evolutionary theory) and faith are largely a modern construction?
Wait… Sounds a lot like BioLogos 
.
I would challenge this statement. Jesus did view the Scriptures as authoritative, as did the apostles. Did he take a literal view? I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but to say that Jesus (and his apostles) used only a literal interpretation of the OT Scriptures reveals how little you actually know of the Scriptures. I suggest that you buy and read Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, edited by D.A. Carson and featuring an all-star lineup of conservative scholars, if you really want to understand how Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and the rest actually read the Old Testament. Many, many times, it is far from literal.
That is because someone convinced them that evolution and the Bible are incompatible. What you’ve described very obviously doesn’t happen to people who believe evolution and the Bible are compatible. Christians become atheists over evolution when they are convinced to do so by other Christians, or by atheists.
While we’re at it, here are some other arguments Christians have made in the past.
Disbelief in witches and witchcraft contradicts the Bible, and if we teach that there’s no such thing as witches today and that people who claim such powers don’t really have them, we’ll turn Christians into atheists. If one is true the other must be false. You can’t believe there’s no such thing as witches and believe the Bible at the same time.
Believing that the Earth is very old contradicts the Bible, and if we teach it then Christians will become atheists. If one is true the other must be false. You can’t believe the Earth is very old and believe the Bible is true at the same time.
Disbelief in the immortal soul contradicts the Bible, and if we teach there’s no immortal soul we’ll turn Christians into atheists. If one is true the other must be false. You can’t believe humans are totally mortal and believe the Bible at the same time.
Belief in a set of natural laws which govern activity in the universe contradicts the Bible, and if we teach such a thing as the “laws of physics” we’ll turn Christians into atheists. If one is true the other must be false. You can’t believe in the “laws of physics” and believe the Bible at the same time.
Belief in the Big Bang contradicts the Bible, and if we teach such a thing we’ll turn Christians into atheists. If one is true then the other most be false. You can’t believe the Big Bang and believe the Bible at the same time.
Belief that Noah’s flood was local contradicts the Bible, and if we teach such a thing we’ll turn Christians into atheists. If one is true then the other must be false. You can’t believe Noah’s flood was local and believe the Bible at the same time.
Rinse and repeat. We’ve seen it over and over and over again in history. It’s never true. People only turn into atheists over these issues when Christians and atheists work hard to turn them into atheists.
Hi Joe,
I’ll concede that I don’t presently have an explanation for Genesis 5:5 and will be the first to admit that my views in toto include a few undotted Is and uncrossed Ts. I will say that it wasn’t TOE that caused me shift to believing in Adam and Eve as archetypes for the human race (I believed for most of my evolutionary-believing life that they were simply the first 2 to evolve). It’s from knowledge of paleontology, anthropology and population genetics combined with what scripture says about them.
I don’t think you and I see the bible the same way. I see God using an unknown number of people over at least 1,500 years on 3 continents to write in 3 languages letters, historical narratives, books of prayers, poems and stories to communicate to us a message of love and salvation in ways that they would relate to and understand. Not all of this is meant to be taken, “literally”. Using outside sources we know that ancient cultures had origins traditions, as did the Hebrews. As far as Genesis 1, even someone living 4,000 years ago could see that it didn’t make literal sense for God to create the sun and moon to govern the day and night when there were already 3 days and nights.
I never said I thought there was direct evidence from living organisms that life requires a Creator. My faith is not based on the necessity for God, and as I’ve said repeatedly, I think that is a bad basis for faith. My faith is based on the experienced reality of God and the acceptance that God is who he says he is in the revelation he gave us in Scripture and Jesus Christ. The evidence I am talking about is obtained intuitively and spiritually, it isn’t empirical or the result of logical deduction or reasoning. I can know God loves me and this is a purely experiential form of evidence, apart from logic, observation, or proof. I can just know. I can know that there is a reality beyond the physical using my intuition and imagination. I could really care less if my evidence and knowledge is not convincing proof to an atheist. Their skepticism does not invalidate my experiential knowledge or the faith I have in its truth.
I think you will find that no serious supporter of God’s omniscience thinks omniscience translates automatically into a 100% determinate world.
God can create a universe where there are significant “lacuna” in natural lawfulness (at the Quantum level, or anywhere you might select).
As long as God is able to KNOW what is going to happen (when no one else can) … even with non-lawful events . . . then there is no barrier to God running the universe as a “front-loaded” system.
It is not lawfulness or un-lawfulness that causes the problem - - it’s the NOT KNOWING the outcomes that makes front-loading non-viable.
I can agree with much of this. As far as being careful, this is why I said that I do not think it is compatible with Christianity, as opposed to making some sort of dogmatic proclamation. You might have noticed (indeed you do notice) that I went on to say that I share much in common with any Christian who holds the front loaded view while affirming the evidence from life that life requires a Creator.[quote=“fmiddel, post:859, topic:4944”]
No, I didn’t insist. I asked. I believe evidence is necessary for faith to exist. But not necessarily empirical evidence. Faith is not “blind.” That is a false Enlightenment construct. So I was specifically asking about empirical evidence.
[/quote]
Actually, what you said was “necessary empirical evidence,” but that’s ok. I believe that you intended it as a question.[quote=“fmiddel, post:859, topic:4944”]
But in further response, if evidence is not necessary, then of what benefit is it for “Christian[s] who champion front loaded evolution” being “willing to stand with the ID proponent in championing the clear evidence for the necessity of a Creator”? In what way would that be “progress”?
[/quote]
It would be progress to agree that evidence does indeed exist for the necessity of a Creator. I have offered what I consider to be evidence of the highest caliber (the information and technology of life). On the one hand, no one has presented any refutation against this evidence. On the other hand, many have protested that it is not wise to call this evidence what it is. Acknowledging it would therefore be progress.
Well I am delighted that you have decided to join me in a conversation! Before we get to the meat, please allow me to put a few things that you have accused me of in a proper perspective:
I can only see two possibilities here: either you are being blatantly disingenuous about what I have said, or your understanding of what people actually say misses the mark so very badly that I have to pity anyone who comes to you for counsel and advice.
But just to clear the air, the essence of what I have said is that belief in the TOE ( going forward I will use the term “Darwinism”) is the necessary prerequisite to atheism. I have not heard anyone ever declare something like this: “YEC is the greatest engine for atheism ever invented.” Yet the late Wil Provine, who evangelized his atheism to decades of biology students has said that darwinism is the greatest engine for atheism ever invented. We have also been assured that darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest (Dawkins), that evolution is a universal acid that eats through every belief (Dennett), and that evolution has rendered God unnecessary (a popular biology textbook).
I will simply state the obvious here. There is a pretty substantial number of YEC Christians. You have railed against them with a level of vitriol that I dare not invoke. Therefore, this charge of yours is hypocricy. I will leave it at that
You can label the evidence any way you wish. The main point is that it is evidence, and evidence of the highest caliber. And if you want to arbitrarily restrict what you call “science,” to methodological naturalism (as many do), go ahead. I will leave that sort of quibbling to philosophers of science. The evidence - however you wish to label it - is what I am happy to discuss.
And now we can begin a conversation. I will repeat this question I have posed to you previously: earlier, you asked me to imagine a world where physics and the universal constants inevitably produced life. From this, I made the assumption that you believe we live in such a world. When I challenged you, your only response was an indirect one in a conversation with another poster, where you retreated from this statement. So I would like to know: was my assumption incorrect or do you actually believe this to be true. And if you do believe it, please share with me (regardless of whether it can be published in a peer reveiwed journal) your reasons for believing that this is even possible.
Thanks
Casper: I do not doubt your sincerity or your passion. I will take issue with you, however.
My understanding of EC and BioLogos (formed mainly by the Dennis Lamoreaux article explaining what EC is), is that God Created the initial conditions which gave rise to a universe capable of supporting life. I am in total agreement to up to this point. But when the article goes further in stating that these same laws which govern matter and constrain it into regularities by which we can understand the natural world, have also given rise to life, which is fundamentally different from the natural world, it has made a strong statement regarding the nature of life. It is this further claim that exposes a clear conflict between the truth claims of (what I am now referring to as…) Darwinism and the truth claims of the Bible.
Not to come across as cruel, but I am suspicious of “interpretation modes” that exist primarily to facilitate believe in darwinism.
Finally, I agree that there is no tension between science and Scriptures. I humbly submit that concerning the TOE, the science is pointing us very clearly in a direction that those who have an a-priori commitment to naturalism (both metaphysical and methodological) refuse to even consider. It is this voluntary philisophical blindess that keeps so many from following the evidence where it is leading.
You and I may disagree, but I always enjoy hearing from you!
I think you would do well to avoid using the term Darwinism when describing the BioLogos position.
I don’t think anyone would agree that the term “Darwinism” allows for the injection of GOD into the process of descent from the common ancestors.
Are you sure you are in the right building? Or maybe you are in the PERFECT building - - only BIOLOGOS can fill all your requirements… a bent towards science… and yet a constant reference to God to keep Evolution “grounded” (so to speak) in the Divine.
This is not the official BioLogos position. This is merely the position of one person in the BioLogos tent. Some theistic evolutionists believe that God may have or certainly did intervene by first cause to guide evolution. I would remind you also that Michael Behe is a theistic evolutionist too.
The BioLogos position can be found in their Belief Statement.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.