Personally I am not real big on commentaries. They can provide insight in some limited ways, but I prefer to spend the time I set aside for the Lord with Him directly and with His Word directly. Therefore, I am hoping that you and I can have a conversation directly with one another. Here’s a good place to start: please note that I said Jesus takes a high literal view of the Scriptures. I did not say, as you write, that Jesus used only a literal interpretation. There is a difference.
Some examples of the high literal view Jesus had concerning the Scriptures include His affirmations of the Exodus (John 6:49), the account of Jonah in the great fish (Matthew 12:40), and the flood (Matt 24:38,39). I offer these three examples because they not only demonstrate Jesus’s high literal view of the Scriptures, but they are also examples of passages that commonly succumb to the desire to interpret them more in line with man’s current understanding of the natural world. This is important here.
I have given it more thought than you could possibly know.
True. Atheism has always existed, but today it is flourishing, and like it or not, Darwin is a big reason for this flourishing. For atheism to be true, some naturalistic narrative of the origin and evolution of life must also be true. this is why Dawkins can say that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and the late Wil Provine could say that evolution is the greatest engine for atheism ever invented.
Again, I want to ask you to deal with what I actually say and not what you want to believe I said. I have not so much as inferred that Christians should suppress any truth whatsoever. It is a gross and inexcusable assumption on your part to claim that I have.
Common descent is a theory. It is in no way an established truth. Many people look at the data and conclude that CD is true, but they do not know that it is. Others, like myself, look at the data and conclude that CD is unlikely to be true. This is another area where I am happy to have a conversation with you. For now, let the record be clear that I do not buy the “truth of common descent”.
And again I point out that this rabbit trail is a complete fabrication in your own mind. Nevertheless, I find it ironic that there exist several organizations (to include taxpayer funded organizations) such as the NCSE and the ACLU which labor relentlessly to suppress the evidence against evolution being taught in public schools! I agree with you that the evidence cannot be suppressed in the end, but I think you are very confused about who is doing the suppressing.
Ignorant condescension is very repugnant.
Yet another assumption on your part, and a bad one at that. As a new Christian, I used to gobble up commentaries; any commentaries I could find. I was not the least bit selective. But as I have grown from milk to meat, I see most all commentaries as little more than doctrines of man. There is no substitute for the actual word.
I am not seeking glory for myself and indeed I strive always to bear fruit, but let me ask you this: do you think it is an easy thing for me to be an intellectual army of one here at BioLogos?
I do not think you have a good handle on the meaning of the word “metaphysical,” and I find it somewhat amusing that you seize on my paperclip observation while completely ignoring my main point immediately preceeding that observation:
"[quote=“deliberateresult, post:898, topic:4944”]
We know a lot about what natural processes are and are not capable of and a lot about what intelligent agents are capable of. We have a vast and ever growing reservoir of empirical data that gives us, in many cases, great confidence in identifying the signature of design Moreover, the creation of functional, prescriptive information is an immaterial process governed by fundamentally different laws than those which govern the material world. Many of these laws are mutually exclusive of one another so that any sort of hope of some future rescue for a non intelligent cause is simply not possible.
[/quote]
Hi, Joe. I would be glad to have a real conversation with you, but not here. This thread has devolved into an endless spiral of point/counter-point in debate. I showed up here about a month ago to research a book that I am contemplating, and to sharpen my own understandings of evolution against the understandings of people better informed than me. In a debate, on the other hand, each side regards the other as an “opponent,” and neither side will concede even the smallest point, so no one can be said to learn anything. Personally, I do not feel like I have any opponents here, and my goal in being here is not to “win” or earn “likes.” It is simply to learn what I can and, when it seems appropriate, share whatever knowledge I have gained with others. If my insights aren’t helpful to you, I take no offense. Not everyone likes me even in person! Haha. So, if you would like to converse, feel free to send me a private message. Other than that, I’ll reply to you and take my leave again.
[quote=“deliberateresult, post:915, topic:4944”]
I said Jesus takes a high literal view of the Scriptures. I did not say, as you write, that Jesus used only a literal interpretation. There is a difference.[/quote]
The confusion stems from your terminology. I am used to theologians who discuss a “high view” of Scripture or a literal hermeneutic (“literal view”), but the “high literal view” is not a common term (at least, a quick Google search turned up nothing), so you should not blame people for misunderstanding what you meant by it.
The examples that you gave are certainly worth discussing, but the question is whether they provide us with a guiding principle that Jesus (and his apostles) used to interpret the Scripture. My contention is that the literal approach was not the only way that they read Scripture. They actually took a much more fluid approach to interpreting the Scripture than you seem to realize. For example, both Jesus and Paul asserted that the Scriptures predicted that the Christ would be raised from death on the third day (Luke 24:46, I Cor. 15:4). Good luck finding a literal fulfillment, if you think that’s how they always interpreted the Scriptures! Understanding the many ways that Jesus and the apostles used Scripture can only help us to sharpen our own understanding of the Scripture, which is why I encouraged you to study it.
I bet!
[quote=“deliberateresult, post:915, topic:4944”]
Again, I want to ask you to deal with what I actually say and not what you want to believe I said. I have not so much as inferred that Christians should suppress any truth whatsoever. It is a gross and inexcusable assumption on your part to claim that I have.[/quote]
This is an example of debate, which I previously said does not interest me. I could toss the ball right back in your corner by pointing out my own actual words, which were “you seem to be advocating…” The key word “seem” indicates that I am making an inference, so there was really no reason to fly off the handle. I stated upfront that you seemed to be advocating something. (And if you really want to be a stickler about me responding to what you actually say instead of what I want to believe you said, I would have to ask why you inferred that Christians should suppress the truth. Do I just assume that you said “inferred” when you meant “implied,” or should I try to interpret your actual words?) But … I’m not really interested in debate. It seemed to me that your argument was that even if we believed common descent to be true, we should not teach it or advocate it since it played into the hands of atheists. If that is a gross and inexcusable caricature of your position, then okay. That was my impression of what you seemed to be saying. I apologize for misunderstanding you.
My mind is very busy fabricating things! Haha. I’m not confused about one thing: We should never adopt the tactics of the enemy. Lies and deceit and political power are not our weapons. We are in a battle for hearts and minds, and our weapons are the spirit and truth. We are on the side of truth. Denying the truth only weakens our testimony.
Normally true. I apologize for giving that impression. However, you’ve made umpteen references to Scripture here, so I am not speaking out of complete ignorance of your understandings of it. Part of my concern is based on comments that you make along these lines:
Feel free to correct me if I’ve misconstrued (and I’m sure I have, haha), but I have run across this type of comment before, almost always from people who share your literal views of interpretation, and almost always from people who do not understand the role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation. Their problem is that they think the Spirit directly reveals to them the “truth” of a passage, such that everything that doesn’t agree with what the Spirit has revealed to them is simply the “doctrines of men.” When you speak like they do and use the same catchphrases that they do, what am I to assume but that you share their views? Perhaps I am wrong (hence the “almost always” instead of “always”), and it is merely coincidence that you say the same things in the same language as they do, but I have been conditioned by long experience to make that obvious connection and encourage you to broaden your study of the Scriptures.
You read a bunch of commentaries and, admittedly, were not selective. You have to admit that path doesn’t sound like one that would lead you from “milk” to “meat.” I don’t doubt that you have matured spiritually from your Scripture readings. God’s word will accomplish its purpose. Nevertheless, the Lord has appointed teachers in the church for a reason, and brushing them aside under the heading “doctrines of men” is both unbiblical and unwise. Wisdom is found in a multitude of counselors. Loving the Lord includes loving him with all the mind. I think that you have some pretty glaring blind spots in your knowledge of God’s word. I’d be happy to point you toward some resources that might be helpful, and might actually build you up in the Lord. If you’re interested in talking about that, hit me up. If you think I’m off base, go ahead and proceed to hit me over the head.
Praise God that you seek his glory! What you are doing is not easy, and it requires a huge time commitment. I respect you for your passion. I also respect that you’re obviously a smart guy and (almost always) articulate. But … all of those things just make me shake my head. All of these hours spent here, and what have you accomplished? You imply that the time you give to prayer and reading God’s word leaves no time for study, but you have time for this?! I am simply trying to encourage you, as a brother in Christ, to stop wasting your time here and put it to better use. As I tried to express in my last post, it is my opinion that you would bear much more fruit if you would study to expand your understanding of the Scriptures. That is my advice. Take it or leave it.
What have I accomplished? I have no idea. On the surface, it seems that I have accomplished absolutely nothing. But I do not know how or even whether God is working through me here. I truly believe that each of us has at least one sermon in us: our own personal testimony. I believe that for every unique testimony, there are people with whom that testimony will resonate. I also truly believe, as many have testified (both atheist and rescued believer), that darwinism turns believers into atheists, Therefore, in the very least, I implore my brothers and sisters who embrace naturalistic evolution to be sensitive to this and to strongly consider and celebrate the robust evidence for intelligent agency when it comes to life. I also hope that they will consider that special Creation of the various “kinds” of life (note: I do not pretend to know exactly what is meant by “kind.” This is an inspired term), especially mankind, is a strong theme that runs throughout Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. It is by no means confined to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. On the other hand, there is nothing in Scriptures that I am aware of that supports naturalistic evolution.
Finally, though I do try to pray as I contribute to this forum, I do not consider this to be time with Him. I do hope it is time for Him.
Perhaps I will reach out to you on the issue of common descent some day. Thanks again!
And yet George, when I ask you what the difference is, the only reply you can muster is, “But God is behind the process.” Thus, it seems to be darwinism to me; darwinism plus God, but darwinism nonetheless. And, for what its worth, it seems to be darwinism to many others.
This past spring there was a three way debate in Toronto between an atheist (Lawrence Krauss), an ID advocate (Stephen C Meyer), and an EC (Dennis Lamoreaux). You can find the debate on Youtube if you are interested. The only difference between Lamoreaux and Krauss was that Lamoreaux professed a believe in God. When it came to evolution, they were complete brothers in arms. Lamoreaux was clearly more comfortable siding with Krauss than with Meyer.
“Many of these laws are mutually exclusive of one another so that any sort of hope of some future rescue for a non intelligent cause is simply not possible.”
Ah, turns out we can have a discussion. Funny, but right now I am writing a book about the 10 years I spent teaching kids in juvenile detention. I ask myself the same question, and come to a similar conclusion. Perhaps the Lord has rebuked my own arrogance for taking you to task? We all are trying in our own ways, but whatever fruit we may bear is most often hidden from our eyes by the complex web of relationships in our lives. It is probably best that way. Our sinful natures would twist even the good things into reasons for pride.
Just as your experience with Darwinism and atheism has influenced your opinions on this issue, my own experience was the reason that I spoke as I did. Back in olden times when the Internet was a babe, I wasted a great deal of time arguing with unbelievers on boards and forums such as this. I don’t recall seeing anyone converted as the result of a debate. Worse, I now wish that I could take back almost everything that I said, because I was just like Job’s friends, who darkened counsel by words without knowledge. My own mistakes are the reason that I caution you not to follow the same path.
Yes, I agree that those of us who believe that common descent is true should be more sensitive to our brothers and sisters who struggle with the concept. I think that a very good parallel is Paul’s discussion of meat offered to idols. Those with a weak conscience were bothered by the idea of eating such meat, so they abstained. Because their motive was to honor God, their abstinence was acceptable to him. Those with a strong conscience realized that an idol was nothing, but they were not to flaunt their freedom in a way that caused their weaker brothers to sin. In the end, though, our notions about how God created do not commend us to him. We are neither better nor worse for our opinions about God’s method of creation. Therefore, you are right on this. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
So, a question for everyone: How do we speak the truth in love to our weaker brothers and sisters?
Hmmm. Not sure I would call “special creation” a theme that runs throughout Scripture. God as creator and everything, especially man, as his creation, definitely. Adding the “special” onto it changes the meaning a bit. I would have to study the topic in Scripture before coming down on one side or the other.
Again, I haven’t really studied the question in depth, but this is an argument from silence, which is impossible to prove and notoriously difficult to refute. One line of thought that has been helpful to me is to take “the long view” of what God was achieving with his word, specifically Genesis. His communication to man had to be relevant to a specific people at a specific time, but it also had to be “timeless,” capable of speaking to many cultures at many different levels of historical development. Genesis had to be capable of speaking to both the ancient Israelite and the modern American without losing its meaning or force. God’s word had to be fluid enough to speak to all men at all times in all places. Think of all the religious texts that have not passed the test, that have been relegated to the dust bin of history. Genesis is fundamentally different than them. Whether we understand chapters 1-11 literally or metaphorically, they retain their force and continue to speak to us as the word of God. The modern world has not silenced his voice.
At the risk of offering an exaggerated analogy, what if you had three people debating the veracity of the moon landings and one Christian was “clearly more comfortable siding with” the atheist, over against a Christian “moon landing hoaxer”?
Further, it’s something of a misrepresentation to say that “the only difference was that Lamoureux believed in God.” Lamoureux was quite vocal and articulate about the reasonableness of faith in a scientific context.
Joe, “the only reply I can muster” is not simply that God is behind the process.
I am jubilantly specific: while no one can know for sure, it seems quite likely that God includes the following in his divine tool belt:
targeting specific DNA molecules for change, using electromagnetic radiation and exposure to temporary micro-concentrations to biological reagents at the cellular level.
targeting of regional and global ecosystems from time to time with
i] asteroids hitting the Earth or just its atmosphere;
ii] volcanic eruptions;
iii] massive releases of methane from the frozen marine sediments;
iv] glaciation driven by the Milankovitch Cycles;
v] movement of continents to and from various seas and land masses.
targeting of rival and predator species by means of disease, or exposure to migrations of other organisms as arranged by divine providence.
I have to re-state the obvious here: your complaint is not with BioLogos. Your complaint is with those who think that God REMOVES himself from the processes of mutation and natural selection. And to my surprise, there are plenty of folks like that. But that’s not what BioLogos teaches.
If you want to argue about God who ALLOWS Darwinism… talk to @Relates - - he’s quite convinced that God doesn’t touch DNA…
@deliberateresult [quote=“deliberateresult, post:922, topic:4944”]
I implore my brothers and sisters who embrace naturalistic evolution to be sensitive to this and to strongly consider and celebrate the robust evidence for intelligent agency when it comes to life. [/quote]
I do see the evidence for an intelligent agency when it comes to life.
There is nothing in scripture that supports any sort of evolution. God’s creation acts in Genesis 1 are theological statements, not scientific ones. That the case, it’s more the fact that God has allowed us the through the intellectual abilities given us the freedom to understand (to an extent) HOW he created us than that the scriptures support evolution.
I am going to explain to you why my statement is not a g-o-g argument. You may feel free to counter and tell me why you think it is, but if you do not, then your g-o-g charge will stand every bit devoid of substance as I claim it is.
To set the stage, allow me to refresh your memory. Here is the paragraph from which you quoted in its entirety:[quote=“fmiddel, post:926, topic:4944”]
We know a lot about what natural processes are and are not capable of and a lot about what intelligent agents are capable of. We have a vast and ever growing reservoir of empirical data that gives us, in many cases, great confidence in identifying the signature of design Moreover, the creation of functional, prescriptive information is an immaterial process governed by fundamentally different laws than those which govern the material world. Many of these laws are mutually exclusive of one another so that any sort of hope of some future rescue for a non intelligent cause is simply not possible.
[/quote]
Did you catch that? The very first thing I said was that we know a lot…
the g-o-g charge is rooted in a basic ignorance. I am claiming knowledge, not ignorance.
In order for any significant amounts of functional prescriptive information to be generated, one must be free to make unconstrained bona fide choices at each successive decision node (choice contingency), free of the coercion and constraints of natural law. Aperiodicity, then, is a necessary and indispensable attribute of functional prescriptive information.
On the other hand, physicality is governed by inviolable cause-and-effect laws. Indeed, we recognize and understand physical laws precisely because of the regular and repeated results that are produced. Physical bifurcation points will follow predicable, regular patterns produced by these laws.
God gave us a universe that we could comprehend precisely because physicality is predictable and regular. He also gave us consciences and the gift of abstract thought. Information belongs to the immaterial realm of abstract thought and is not governed by physical law. Nor could it be, as law-like coercion destroys the ability to generate any significant amounts of functional, prescriptive information.
Therefore, based on what we do know - not what we don’t know - it appears that no future rescue for a naturalistic explanation of the information of life is even possible. In order to hold on to your denial of the clear evidence for God’s direct Creation of life, you are willing to cling to a promissory note for which absolutely no value currently exists, nor will any value ever materialize.
Yeah… you are an Intelligent Design proponent for sure… we can tell by the way you invert the logic of your situation. You propose 3 aspects:
We are denying clear SCIENTIFIC/NATURAL evidence for God’s direct creation of life;
But we do so BECAUSE we cling to a hope that “information” is immaterial.
And so we are adhering to some sort of self-destructive analysis.
The problems are built right into the construction of your analysis:
A) Most of us don’t DENY the “clear scientific evidence” for God’s creation of life - - most of us just DONT see it.
And (B), We don’t cling to a hope; we just don’t see how your view of interpretation leads to PROOF of anything.
You never answered my key question about your view BioLogos teaching Darwinism. If BioLogos teaches “Natural Selection as Managed by God” … I don’t think you need to worry about the BioLogos “view” of Darwinism.
“Based on what we know…it appears that no future rescue for a naturalistic explanation of the information of life is even possible.” (italics added)
Given that we don’t know everything, there’s no difference between this and a “god of the gaps” argument. You cannot prove that forthcoming information may fill in that gap–i.e., a “future rescue for a naturalistic explanation of the information of life.”
A supernatural explanation cannot be scientifically tested.
A “probability approaching zero” for a possible future explanation would be possible if all factors were accommodated.
Let me remind you of a quote by Lord Kelvin:
“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
Of course, within a few decades: relativity and quantum theory.
Conclusive statements about what is possible and not possible are not far off from “god of the gaps” arguments (i.e., we state “what is not possible” and conclude: God!).
I am assuming that you will inevitably return to this thread… and when you do, perhaps you can respond to this question, if you find responding to my earlier query entirely too unpleasant.
Premise #1?: ID proponents say that in many places the design of creation is so good, we have to conclude that a divine intelligence was behind it.
Premise #2? Evolutionists say that in many places the design of creation is so haphazard, we have to conclude that creation is based on the appearance of non-design.
Fact: Regardless of which of the two premises you prefer, ID proponents and Evolutionists should be compelled to agree that the Earth is billions of years old… or, at the very least, much older than 10,000 years.
Analysis: How can Intelligent Design proponents reject the BioLogos position, when we share common ground about the age of the Earth … and we agree that some parts of creation are exquisite and some parts of creation are not?
If one faction is obliged to shift their footing … it is the ID faction … not BioLogos. BioLogos acknowledges the age of the Earth, while most of the ID camp refuses to take a position on the age of the Earth.
When the ID organizations officially declare the multi-billion year age of the Earth … I will buy lunch for at least ONE ID proponent!