that is not at all what I am saying. The four fundamental forces, the regularities of nature, the delicate balance of physical conditions, have brought forth a universe capable of supporting and sustaining complex life. This is a brilliant testament to the Creator.
Living organisms are fundamentally different and distinct from the natural world. All living organisms are made and kept alive by advanced data processing systems and technologically brilliant engineered systems. These systems work in coordinated fashion with one another, exchanging, analyzing, and acting upon constantly shifting data inputs in dynamic time that dwarfs the ability of any man made computer. The meta systems of living organisms âworkâ constantly to achieve a specific goal; keeping the organism alive, which is a state far from equilibrium. In other words, living organisms defy the most fundamental laws of nature in many ways. Living organisms transcend the world of nature.
Itâs not that God could not Create life using purely natural processes (and by the way, I think itâs fair to say that nothing God does is âunnaturalâ in His eyes), its simply that it would take a different set of ânaturalâ processes than the natural processes which exist to sustain a life permitting universe. But I hope you do understand that there is a tremendous difference between a life permitting universe and a universe with actual living organisms. This difference is so fundamental that it needs to be explored, not glossed over.
Therefore, the Creation of life is an additional testimony to the Glory of God. It is by no means a limit. I do not claim to know âhowâ God Created, as the TE or EC does. My claim is that the nature of life testifies - in a way that purely natural processes such as rain and erosion cannot - that life has a Creator. Furthermore, I see this evidence as a crucial apologetic in the worldview battle between naturalism and Christianity. To affirm a purely natural origin and evolution of life narrative is to concede an immense portion of intellectual real estate to the former. It is a concession that is as unfortunate as it is totally unnecessary, given the evidence from life.
Hopefully this clears up for you that the evidence for a Creator of life is in no way a limit, but a further testimony, and perhaps you can begin to understand why I am befuddled at the steadfast refusal of the EC to acknowledge and celebrate the clear evidence from life for a Creator.
One thing you may have figured out about me is that I will always respond if I can. Therefore, as long as you are willing to have a conversation, Iâm in!
[quote=âRichard_Wright1, post:941, topic:4944â]
This is where you and I differ. For you, Genesis 1 MUST be interpreted literally,
Well, not exactly. I can see literary devices at play in Genesis 1. Nonetheless, I also see very important truths emerging. And although I am not YE, as some here continue to insist I must be, I do indeed see the Creation days as seven successive 24 hour periods. I believe there is a strong pedigree for this view. So how then, can I not be YE? Recall that time is relative and then consider that at least some of the most prominent Jewish scholars of old had two separate calendars in view: one being the six days of Creation, the other being the history of man from Adam forward. Time in the Adamic age is measured, quite naturally from the perspective of earth as we look back in time and reasonably see a universe that is billions of years old. But where then is the Creation calendar viewed from? This is where the relativity of time comes into play. There are many locations in the universe where billions of years to us is six literal days there. Physicist Gerald Schroeder gives an excellent presentation on this perspective. You can find it on Youtube if you are interested.
But more than that, I see Godâs role as the active Creator of life throughout the entire Scriptures. I see this as a consistent theme; the whole counsel of God from Genesis to Revelation. By no means do I limit my view to Genesis 1. Hence, it is not correct to say that for me, Genesis 1 must be taken literally.
This is really where our disagreement lies; in the evidence from nature. Again, even the simplest single cell organism is a technologically brilliant phenomenon, at the heart of which is the most advanced data processing system we have ever encountered. We have no reason to have any confidence at all that such a system could ever come about through purely natural processes. We have never observed purely natural processes to produce so much as a single paper clip. And given that functional, prescriptive information is immaterial, allowing material processes billions or even trillions of years to produce an immaterial result seems for all intents and purposes to be hopeless. The material realm and the immaterial realm are governed by mutually exclusive realities.
But in the end, this is what interests me the most: earlier you said this:
Again, that is not what I am saying. I am saying we have a purely natural origin combined with Godâs direction of that origin. That is just as much a testimony to the Glory of God. Would you be willing to say that it is a possibility even if you donât agree that is the way it was done? If it is not a possibility then you are placing a limit on what God can do.
Do you think thatâs a good tone to start a response with? Iâm in fact not being evasive at all.
If we accept God is all-knowing, it does not the slightest bit of good in answering @deliberateresultâs question(s). He asked whether predictability and certainty of outcome were essential aspects of natural law, and whether if we were to have perfect knowledge of a system, we could perfectly predict the outcome. Your all-knowing God presumably knows the outcome of all processes, natural or supernatural, deterministic or not. That kind of knowledge has nothing to do with the question at hand.
To expand on the actual issue⌠Itâs possible to write down a model of a deterministic classical chaotic system, in which perfect knowledge of the position and momentum of every system component leads to perfect predictability. Even in that model, perfect predictability is not actually attainable, since perfect knowledge of a continuous variable cannot be represented in a finite universe. More importantly, such a model will not correspond to any real physical system, since real physical systems do not have positions and momenta that can be known perfectly. The system heâs talking about doesnât exist.
I do not refuse your invitations. We have discussed the difference several times. Or I have discussed the difference ⌠and you just ignore what I say, and continue to say that there is no difference.
The Atheistic form of evolution has no God to guide it.
The BioLogos version does have a God to guide it.
You say you know there is a God-guided form of creation, because you can look to science to prove it.
BioLogos, generally speaking, doesnât assert that science can prove God guides evolution.
The BioLogos version of evolution accepts that life on Earth, and its evolution, took millions and millions of years.
Do you accept that it took millions of years for humanity to emerge?
Here is where I would love you to elaborate. You must have your reasons for believing this. What are those reasons?[quote=âBill_II, post:959, topic:4944â]
Would you be willing to say that it is a possibility even if you donât agree that is the way it was done? If it is not a possibility then you are placing a limit on what God can do.
[/quote]
There are many different ways the word ânaturalâ can be used, but when we use the word specifically in the context of ânatural processes,â here is the definition:
" occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural "
(merriam-webster online)
natural processes exhibit no purpose in and of themselves. Natural processes do not make bona fide choices, steer events toward intended outcomes, exhibit foresight, or pursue goals. Yet ever since the Sequence Hypothesis, we have known that at the very heart of living organisms is information. Functional, prescriptive information. Indispensable to the generation of any significant amount of functional prescriptive information is the freedom to make bona fide choices at ever single decision node. Natural processes have no such freedom.
What I am saying then, is that the nature of life testifies of a Creator. When you say that life has a purely natural origin combined with Godâs direction, you are making a logically incoherent statement. Read the definition of ânaturalâ above once again. In order to resolve the logical incoherence of your statement, it seems that you must restate it in a manner like this: âBecause life requires Godâs guidance, life does not have a purely natural originâ
And hereâs the good news: the evidence testifies to the truth of that statement!
Let me refer you to post #887 where I asked you this question:
" I hope you will be willing to patiently walk me through this, step by step. Why do you believe âit seems quite likelyâ that these apparently deterministic processes require Godâs purposeful steering?"
And you gave this answer:
âThere is nothing to walk you throughâ
Iâm still very willing to hear your answer to this question, but as long as you refuse to answer it, please refrain from insisting that you have.
If it werenât for the fact that you have claimed to be a youth minister and therefore in a unique position to influence the development of the faith of young people, I would have given up on you long ago for your steadfast blindness and deafness. You not only refuse to hear, consider, and respond to what I say, you do not even listen to what you yourself sayâŚ[quote=âfmiddel, post:963, topic:4944â]
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.
Thatâs not an argument. Itâs merely a restatement of your premise with fancier words.
[/quote]
Itâs a claim. I have put it out there. If it is wrong, bring forth your evidence and show exactly where it is wrong. But if you cannot, please note that putting some inappropriate, silly catchphrase label on it does not constitute contending with it. Show me where my claim is wrong. Show us all.
In the meantime, I would love it if you can show me exactly why the belief that the origin and great diversity of life has come about through purely natural processes is nothing more than a n-o-g (naturalism of the gaps) argument.
my statement is a claim. If its wrong, bring forth your evidence. (by the way, while I continue to use the word âevidence,â you continue to put the word âproveâ in my mouth. Very untrue, and very annoying. But then, its just a testimony that you have no real interest in engaging)[quote=âgbrooks9, post:966, topic:4944â]
The BioLogos mission is constructed to accommodate those who donât agree with your hypothesis.
[/quote]
The BioLogos mission is constructed to accomodate those who do not agree that the evidence affirms a Creator of Life? How curious! I bet you would get plenty of disagreement from many of my BioLogos brothers and sisters on that one.[quote=âgbrooks9, post:966, topic:4944â]
The fact you donât believe anyone can disagree with your hypothesis is the frailest aspect of your discussion.
[/quote]
I came to BioLogos specifically because I am seeking out those who have a different view than I have. It might do you well to re-read my OP. I have been proven wrong before George. Not only did I come to grips with being wrong, as my testimony confirms, my worldview did an entire 360 because of it. So yes, I can be wrong and I can admit it and my life can reflect that humility. So prove me wrong if you can, George.
You donât like it when I say this, but rolling dice is a purely natural process for which God controls the outcome. Rain is a purely natural process which God controls. The definition you quoted is based on an atheistic world view. In my world view all natural processes are under Godâs control. Donât you agree with this? It is what the Bible says. Or do you believe that rain is not under Godâs control but the creation of man is?
Science does a very good job of explaining natural processes and says nothing about how God is involved. Scripture does a very good job of explaining how God is in control and says nothing about how natural process work. We have to put the two together to get the complete picture.
I went back to your OP and if you want to talk about a âlogically incoherent statementâ you made one.
The truth or non-truth of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. The truth of Godâs existence is written on your heart. The truth of evolution is written in Godâs creation. Your problem is you make these mutually exclusive truths. Just like the atheists do. You appear to be trying to find PROOF of Godâs existence in the natural world. Why? You have all the proof you need in Scripture. I believe you can find signs that point to God in the wonders of his creation but you will never find a proof of Godâs existence in nature. If you had found BioLogos back in your college days and found that the truth of the TOE says nothing about the truth of Godâs existence do you think the outcome might have been different?
Didnât you just preach to me about putting the word âproveâ in your mouth? And yet see how naturally it comes out of your mouth when you want people to prove you wrong.
As for the BioLogos mission ⌠please re-examine exactly what I wrote. I said that the BioLogos mission is constructed to accommodate those who do not agree with you about God being proved by science. I dare say, even those who might agree with you would be compelled to agree that BioLogos is not designed to only appeal to people who share your beliefs.
In fact, wouldnât you say that BioLogos doesnât seem to appeal to you at all ⌠even though you are one of those people who think sciences proves Godâs role in creation?
You speak in circles, Joe.
BioLogos is designed to support those who may not believe science proves Godâs existence - - but who still believe that God is involved with the evolution of life on Earth.
And, if I may, I think it is completely forgivable that BioLogos lacks âunity on key theological questionsâ - - especially when contrasted with the seriously fatal flaw ID has in lacking scientific unity.
Science is not really intended to be a âBig Umbrellaâ. Sure⌠diverse scientists are encouraged to develop conclusions and findings using diverse methods. But the point is to arrive at a single Truth.
But BioLogos cannot arrive at a single truth about metaphysics and theology - - itâs an impossible dream. It must âaccommodateâ men and women of many many many denominations âŚ
BioLogos must be a big tent. Because there is no way to prove one theology over another.
But letâs spend some time with your question about âinvolved withâ.
Personally, I think your use of the term âFront-Loadedâ (which is different from how front-loaded was originally embraced in the metaphysical discussions of Creation) is the most sound. It requires God have foreknowledge even of events that are not controlled by natural law. Based on this foreknowledge, God can configure his creation as necessary from the very beginning⌠and then, depending on how much randomness and or the miraculous a personâs faith requires⌠God does what he needs to!
As weâve discussed before, this is no Deism scenario - - because Godâs actions must also include his communications with humanity (and with any other creations that might merit such treatment) - - all in real time, the exact opposite of what people call the Watchmaker Scenario.