I cannot possibly encourage you enough to do just that! May I recommend a Strong’s study of the words “created,” “made,” and “formed”?
you do realize that when you begin with, “given that we don’t know everything…,” to justify accusing a certain position a “g-o-g argument,” you have effectively labeled every position that anyone has ever taken a g-o-g argument, do you not? And therefore, your g-o-g charge deteriorates into meaningless gibberish.
When one thing - let’s call it “thing A,” possesses necessary characteristics and attributes that are mutually exclusive of the necessary characteristics and attributes of another thing - “thing B,” then no future revelation will ever turn one into the other. Natural law is natural law precisely because of its high degree of predictability and certainty of outcome. The ability to generate any significant amount of functional, prescriptive information requires aperiodic sequences, which is the opposite of predictability. Furthermore, natural law is deterministic and inviolable (gravity cannot make a mistake), but language exists to convey symbolic meaning based on arbitrary rule-based conventions. The essential qualities of the former are mutually exclusive of the essential qualities of the latter. No future revelation can change this. But even beyond this, advanced data processing systems and advanced engineering systems require the deliberate, purposeful steering of events toward intended outcomes. Such attributes are exclusive to the minds of agents. Such attributes are also completely absent in the cause-and-effect deterministic natural world. You simply cannot escape this logical, straightforward conclusion: advanced data processing and advanced engineering will always be reliable signatures of intelligent agency. But as a Christian who believes in God the Creator, what continues to amaze me is, why on earth would you want to?
Here’s a question for you: do you consider the physical effects of intelligent agents (for example, smart phones) to be supernatural effects or natural?
Richard:
(I may be misinterpreting you here. If so, please correct me)
According to the TOE, purely natural processes - the same processes which we know are capable of producing the deterministic effects of rain and erosion - are also capable of bringing about life in all its marvelous forms. Therefore, to “understand” the TOE to be true, it seems to me that it must be prerequisite that we also understand that these natural processes are capable of producing the advanced data processing and advanced engineering essential for all living organisms. You and I both have before us the exact same data. I see every reason to reject purely natural processes as a sufficient causal explanation for the phenomenon of life and no reason whatsoever; not even a remote hint of a reason, to embrace such explanation.
I am glad that you see the evidence for intelligent agency when it comes to life and even without knowing exactly what evidence you see, I encourage you to celebrate this evidence, because it is exactly the sort of evidence that distinguishes one worldview from another and brings clarity to the origins debate. But if I understand you correctly, you also believe that the TOE provides an adequate causal account of life. What is it exactly about the cause-and-effect deterministic processes that produce rain and erosion, that gives you confidence that these same processes can account for the phenomenon of life?
That is true in the case of simple systems, such as a falling apple. However, complex systems do not always produce the same outcome even though they are controlled by natural law. Have you ever seen a chaos pendulum?
OK George, I hope you will be willing to patiently walk me through this, step by step. Why do you believe “it seems quite likely” that these apparently deterministic processes require God’s purposeful steering? I ask this because several times you have protested to me that you believe God is “behind” the phenomenon of life while at the same time seeing no evidence for this belief. But here you seem to be saying that it is likely God has intervened in His natural order in specific ways to arrange certain specific outcomes. Thus it seems you are simultaneously taking contradictory stances. Please help me here.
Among other things, my self imposed mission here is to seek clarity on why it is, given your belief that the mutation/selection process is a sufficient causal explanation for the great variety of life, you believe that God is involved in the processes.
You seem to think that a person is only allowed to think God is involved in the lawfulness of the natural order if one can find proof of it.
Where did this idea come from, Joe? This is certainly not how millions of Christians arrive at many of their conclusions. I suggest that it is you who attempt this equation, in order to justify your position that any accommodation to Natural Selection is a quick roller-coaster ride to Hell.
Millions of Christians arrive at their conclusions about God because of their faith in the general story of the Gospel. And millions of non-Christians arrive at their conclusions for metaphysical or philosophical reasons.
There is nothing to walk you through, Deliberate Joe. The essence of the Bible is to teach humanity that God is behind all things. Just because some of the Bible has some of the details wrong is no reason why I am forced to become an atheist . . . though you seem quite determined to make the slippery slope that precipitous!
Hello Joe,
I’m impressed that you are trying to respond to everyone here. I honestly wasn’t expecting a response at this point.
This is where you and I differ. For you, Genesis 1 MUST be interpreted literally, regardless of the evidence that the writer used the day’s ancient science of the three-tiered universe as he expressed God’s theological thoughts. Given that, you look at Genesis 1 as saying HOW things were created, and that is a, “special” creation from nothing (though Genesis 2 contradicts that for humans). Therefore, you don’t see the clear evidence that biological life evolved from simpler forms. But I’ve taken science out of Genesis 1 and can accept the evidence from nature without filtering it through what I consider bad theology. Now that I can see the miraculous powers of the natural processes initiated by God in how complex life forms developed through common descent, it’s not a big leap to see the power of these processes over hundreds of millions of years creating simple life forms. BTW, I think that you’ve conflated my responses with someone else’s, I’ve not mentioned, “rain and erosion” before.
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. - Romans 1:20.
We don’t need to study the creation of a cell to understand that everything is from God, what He created that anyone in bible times could see was more than enough. Some people for some reason don’t see it, we don’t have to use science to prove God exists.
[quote]But even if that were not the case, evolution says that the unfolding of life was a completely natural process. If purely natural processes are capable of bringing forth all life, then God is obviously not in the process at all.
[/quote]
Again, according to YOUR worldview, evolution without, “interventions” means that God is not involved (and by inference not necessary). But, as I’ve said more than once here, evolution happens in a context of a universe with life-oriented physical laws. You still need God. I’ve merely taken, “science” out of the biblical creation accounts.
1 Like
Are you saying that predictability and certainty of outcome are not essential attributes of natural law?
Do you agree or disagree that if we were to have complete knowledge of all of the deterministic cause-and-effect elements governing a “chaotic structure,” at the entangled macroscopic level, and the exact extent to which each element governs such a system, the apparent chaos would dissolve into certainty of outcome?
The only way to have complete knowledge would be to be God. But even if we had complete knowledge there is no way for humans to use that knowledge to determine the outcome. We could only approximate what the outcome might be. God however would know the outcome and can direct that outcome as He sees fit. Random to humans, non-random to God. Sort of like evolution.
2 Likes
The problem with evolution goes beyond random. The grand claims of evolution assert that every single novel body plan has come about through purely natural processes. These claims have absolutely no empirical support whatsoever and given that every body plan requires extensive data processing and a vast array of coordinated, amazingly sophisticated molecular machinery, we have no reason at all to believe that natural processes are capable of producing even one body plan, let alone endless forms.
This is the problem with evolution.
[quote=“deliberateresult, post:944, topic:4944”]
we have no reason at all to believe that natural processes are capable of producing even one body plan, let alone endless forms.[/quote]
Yet natural processes unequivocally produce billions of body plans every day from embryos. Wouldn’t that be worth studying?
[quote]This is the problem with evolution.
[/quote]It appears that you have a problem with conflating design with production.
2 Likes
Are you saying that God couldn’t use a purely natural process to create? If so, why? I have never understood why some people place limits on God.
And once again … you are attacking the atheistic version of Evolution … not the BioLogos version!
Aside from those here who cannot resist disputing with you … purely on the grounds that you are ". . . an ID supporter attacking BioLogos goals. . . ", most of the rest of us are already capable of agreeing with you that God has intervened in Cosmic creation!
Let me re-state: most of us are already agreeing with you that God has intervened in Creation! What seems to drive you to distraction is that we who agree with you are agreeing with you for reasons you reject. Funny how agreement sometimes works like that, aye?
So when you say “that is the problem with Evolution” - - you are referring to the non-Biiologos view of Evolution - - not the view specifically constructed and endorsed by BioLogos.
ID proponents say there are things that are too perfect in Creation for the Universe to have ever produced without God.
And many (most?) BioLogos supporters say that in addition to amazing instances of seeming perfection, Creation is too marred by imperfections (and evidentially entrenched over eons instead of 24 hour days) for anyone to think that the natural processes of Evolution are not also at work.
See how these two perspectives come together in the mission of BioLogos?
You could say we are ID proponents who all too well know the limits of ID. Or you could say we are Evolutionists who, despite not seeing any conclusive scientific evidence, have faith in the premise that God is behind creation and the multi-millennia process of creation based on God-guided natural selection.
Haven’t you spent enough time on these boards arguing with the few Atheistic-style Evolutionists that patrol these pages?
Hello @deliberateresult. A leading voice in the ID movement just posted a very thoughtful critique of Axe’s recent book.
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/axe.html
What is your rebuttal? In particular, his last section is brilliant.
We might seek to avoid the conclusion that God thinks bottom-up and incrementally, by supposing that God is an Inventor like no other, and that His Mind is utterly unlike our own. Classical theists envisage God in precisely these terms. God, they say, does not belong to any genus: He is sui generis. But if we adopt this portrait of God, then there is no hope of our being able to reason our way up to God by drawing upon analogies with human inventors, as Axe does (pp. 136-138). Axe’s entire argument for Design presupposes that the Designer is very like us, psychologically: He is “someone who invested [in the cosmos] not just intellectually but also emotionally, just as we invest in our creations” (p. 250), and He has a personality as well (p. 250). But if God’s Mind is not at all like ours, then Axe’s argument can never take us to the Mind of God. It will always fall short.
Please keep in mind that @vjtorley is an ID advocate and a Christian.
I don’t know if anyone else is, but I’ll say it. We frequently can’t predict the outcome of natural law.
Since the premise is impossible, the question is meaningless.
What about the non-deterministic cause-and-effect elements? The most we can say is that classical chaotic models are deterministic, but we don’t even think classical models are correct. (And what is the “entangled macroscopic level” of a chaotic system?)
Oh come on, @glipsnort … there’s no reason to be so evasive.
If we accept God is all-knowing … then it is easy to answer @deliberateresult’s question.
Whether there is a part of the natural universe that is genuinely unpredictable or not … an all knowing God is going to know what the unpredictable events are.
It is God’s complete knowledge that makes it possible for him to configure all of his creation to unfold exactly as he requires it to unfold… and based on our observations of the natural world… he’s been at it for at least 13 billion years … (if not longer!) … with 5 billion of them right here on Earth.
Confessing this to Deliberate Joe doesn’t make any of his other assertions any more true.
[quote=“Eddie, post:951, topic:4944”]
No; they don’t produce the plan – in the normal sense of the word “produce.”[/quote]
Yes, they do in the normal sense. For a truly blatant example, look at the pattern of veins in the inside of your forearm, Eddie. One side doesn’t even match the other.
You’re assuming there’s a recipe for the body plan, Eddie. Assuming your conclusion like that is pure sophistry. There is no actual plan for the body to be found! (no, DNA isn’t a plan)
[quote]Similarly, the plan for a chicken isn’t “produced” by the baby chick’s mother, but merely inherited. The plan already exists, and is merely passed down.
[/quote]No, you’re assuming that an actual plan exists. Where is the plan for the pattern of veins or nerves in your arms? How is it inherited?