My ID Challenge

Faith & Science Conversation
82

I believe that BioLogos believes what BioLogos writes that it believes. I understand what BioLogos writes. I am here to tell you that the statement that a purely natural process can produce an intended result is a logical fallacy. Just as the statement that God can make a square circle is a logical fallacy, so is the statement that a purely natural process can produce an intended result.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:64, topic:4944”]

) BioLogos bases these amendments on THE BIBLE… as interpreted in the context of the divine testimony of nature.
[/quote]
I am guessing that what you see as the “divine testimony of nature” in the context of life is very different than what I see as the divine testimony of nature[quote=“gbrooks9, post:64, topic:4944”]

BioLogos would say that while evolution could work in the absence of God, since we believe in God’s role, we do not expect that evolution WITHOUT GOD would produce the same kind of life forms that evolution WITH GOD has been able to produce.
[/quote]
In other words, your claim is that the evidence from life points to a purely natural process. THAT is the problem. When you make this claim, you cannot “enlist” God into this process simply because you believe in Him. Not the God of the Bible. Not the God who deliberately Created us with a clear plan in mind. You might be able to get away with invoking a god who simply wound things up and, what do you know, along came mankind. But you cannot logically say that the God of the Bible deliberately Created mankind using a purposeless process.

It defies the laws of logic.

83

Indeed, selection is choice contingency! However, that which we call natural selection is not. Natural selection is nothing more than differential survival and reproduction. There is no exercise of choice here (and certainly no conscious exercise of choice); it simply happens. And by the way, natural selection is being questioned more and more often as a causally adequate mechanism.

But here is what I am interested in hearing more on from you:

Can you specify what that theory is and how it differs from Darwin’s?

Thanks

84

So, you would advise such a Christian that the God who deliberately Created us in His image and had a specific plan for us does not exist? That’s how much your precious naturalistic theory means to you?

“(I) turn wise men backward and make their knowledge foolishness”
Isaiah 45:25b

85

what made you believe that the TOE is compatible with the Bible? I would love it if you could be as specific as possible.

Thanks

86

There is a problem though, James. It is logically incoherent to believe such a thing could be true. The problem does not put any limitations on God. The problem lies in the fact that this statement violates the laws of logic:

A purposeless process (purely naturalistic evolution of life) has produced an intentional result (God’s deliberate Creation of man in His image).

87

You keep repeating this [contradiction that you charge us with] … and I’m sure you believe it. Indeed something cannot be both purposeless and purposeful. So your logic on that one narrow factoid is unassailable. But beyond that it falls apart.

Imagine a few iron atoms bonded together but vibrating in place with their various kinetic and bond energies. These atoms (and all the fundamental forces acting on them) are entirely devoid of purpose. Not one whit or whiff of intelligence, teleology, intention, or purpose to be found. Now zoom out from that and see a host of other iron atoms also bonded to the first few … zoom out more and more and finally find a “surface”, and then a screw driver bit … in a drill that is busy fastening a screw for me. Voila! Purpose! … and all of it [purpose] found in me, my intentions, (and the makers of the tools I’m using). None of it whatsoever was to be found in the atoms themselves. They know no purpose, in fact “know” nothing at all. They of themselves have/give no purpose to anything. But the makers of that tool did. And I as the user of the tool do.

You won’t find purpose in any process in creation whether it be in inertia, gravity, entropy, or evolution because it was never there to be found. Purpose is found in a mind that can have and act with a will. That probably includes us (or anything with free will or that can exercise intention). And it definitely includes God. But nothing else.

So you are looking for purpose where there never was any to be found.

Now, look to God --the source of all purpose. What I hear you declaring is that God is not permitted to use certain things as tools. Apparently you are fine with Him using godless, atheistic, purposeless gravity. He can use godless, atheistic, purposeless conservation laws. But you draw the line at evolution and declare to God that this particular tool is off-limits to Him. You still have never answered why.

Of course, in God’s hands, nothing is purposeless or godless. So I don’t really believe anything is bereft of purpose. We just may not be privy to what God’s ultimate intention on it is.

8 Likes
88

Hi Joe -

The question, Joe, is whether you see the problem in how the theory of evolution has sometimes been taught.

Your statement is, I believe, based on an assumption that needs to be challenged.

What has been happening, I suspect, is that atheist philosophers and/or scientists you have heard discussing the theory of evolution have made bold assertions about the lack of purpose behind evolution. And you have thus come to associate the theory of evolution with the absence of any purpose whatsoever. But let’s take a peak behind the epistemological curtain and see what kind of foundation their assertion has. The atheistic logical argument runs something like this:

PREMISE. The only valid way to discern a purpose is through the scientific method.
OBSERVATION. The scientific method identifies no purpose in the process of biological evolution.
CONCLUSION. Therefore, biological evolution has no purpose.

I sharply disagree with the premise, and it seems you now do as well, Because I disagree with the premise, I also disagree with the conclusion. As a Christian I believe that God has purposes for how the universe runs, and sometimes I can discern them by faith via His revelation.

Allow me to make an argument that makes my assumptions a bit more explicit, and tell me what you think:

PREMISE: A process whose purpose cannot be discerned by the scientific method can, nevertheless, have a purpose that can be discerned by faith.
OBSERVATION. The scientific method identifies no purpose in the process of biological evolution.
CONCLUSION. Therefore, even though the biologist can see no purpose in evolution, I can discern by faith that evolution has a purpose.

This is what I, as a Christian, believe. Notice the difference?

Philosophers can make this discussion a lot more complex by speaking of different kinds of purposes, different kinds of revelation, different kinds of language, etc. There is some value in all that. Before you delve into all that, though, I want to urge you to consider the fundamental reasoning first.

What do you think, Joe? Does believing in both God and evolution make more sense to you now? Is there some other problem that needs to be addressed, or does this address the issue in a satisfactory way?

2 Likes
89

OK Eddie, you really need to help me here. Please find the thing that I said that gave you this impression. There is a misunderstanding here and we need to clear it up.

Perhaps it would help if I put my argument into a logical format for you:

P1. A purposeless process cannot produce an intended result.
P2. The TOE, being a purely natural process, is devoid of purpose.
P3. God intentionally Created life and mankind (This, according to the uniform and repeated witness of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation - not simply Genesis 1)
C: Therefore, it is impossible to believe that both the Bible and the TOE are true.

In all of my dealings here, I receive constant affirmation that God’s Creation of life was intentional. The objection that I repeatedly receive goes like this: We here at BioLogos believe that God used evolution. Do you see the problem with this objection? It is either saying that God “used” a purposeless process to achieve His intended result, which is a logically incoherent position, or else God actively intervened, deliberately steering the process toward His intended goal. In this case, we can no longer say that life is the result of purely natural processes. Instead, we must say that life is the direct result of agent causation.

However, to this point, it seems that folks here wish to maintain the naturalistic narrative while claiming that God achieved His deliberate result through it. It doesn’t work. It defies logic.

90

Hi Joe,

Eddie’s a really sharp guy, and he will probably reply with some very astute commentary. If I might be permitted to speak, your statement P2 is built on atheistic premises that no Christian should accept. To see why, please read my statement above, and Mervin’s beautifully framed analogy of the screwdriver.

Thanks!

91

Rejecting your premise as invalid is not the same thing as denying the logic of your argument. Repeatedly people have been rejecting your premise, not denying the logical coherence of your argument. You seem to be kind of deaf to this though.

We are asserting that the appearance of randomness does not entail the process has to be uncontrolled. It means the control is undetectable from our point of observation.

4 Likes
92

You have a pretty binary point of view.

Either:

  1. Literal, six-day Creation…

or

  1. No God.

Is that true?

Because there are far more options than Christian or atheistic fundamentalism.

93

That’s what I was taught. I was smarter than just to accept everything I was taught.

I figured out that the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not the only option. It’s not even the best option.

1 Like
94

That the universe has no purpose is not a scientific statement. It is a metaphysical statement that cannot be supported scientifically.

You need to learn the difference between the two…

1 Like
95

No, it’s impossible to believe that undirected evolution and the Bible are both true.

1 Like
96

Hi Joe, you’re way of reasoning surprises me. Please consider the following questions that follow a similar line of reasoning for a different phenomenon, the human embryo.

A. Do you consider the growth of a human embryo to occur by means of natural processes?

If you answers is yes, see questions B and C.
If your answer is no, see questions D and E.

B. Then, do you believe that the growth of a human embryo is also without purpose?
If your answer to question B is yes, congratulations. You have won a meet-and-greet with Richard Dawkins :grin:.

If your answer to question B is no, please answer the following question:
C. If God is purposefully creating human embryos through natural processes, why can’t He have created humanity purposefully through natural processes?

D. Then, in what ways do you think the growth of an embryo differs from a natural process?
E. Do you think God must supernaturally intervene in the natural processes for the embryo to grow?

6 Likes
97

I ran across this blog/book review that expresses things much better than I:

In it he quotes an excerpt from the book reviewed, Evolution and Belief, where Asher quotes N.
T. Wright:
All this business about God intervening is not a language I use, because that implies God is outside the process and occasionally reaches in and stirs the pot and then goes away again. Whereas in Psalms … God is the one who “feeds the ravens when they call on him.” What, does he throw them tidbits from heaven? No, it’s a way of describing the fact that God is active in the world. (p. 227, quote from a 2008 lecture by Wright)

98

@deliberateresult

Joe, you are WASTING everyone’s time. A principle option available to BioLogos supporters is that Evolution is as much, if not more, a DIVINE process … in the guise of a natural process.

Until you understand this … I don’t see how anyone will be able to take you seriously…

99

@deliberateresult

I have tried to follow your reasoning, and the best I can come up with is this:

(a) the TOE has been framed and put forward as a scientific theory in a way that expressly asserts a pointless, purposeless process that depends only on random events and a natural selection process from such events.
(b) no one has formulated a scientific theory that counters (a), or provided an alternative theory that includes a purpose, direction, teleology, or deliberate outcomes.
© some theists have adopted (a) but insist they can add a layer on top of (a) to include God’s involvement.

You maintain that since the only valid theory is (a), than it is logically impossible to do ©.

have I understood you correctly?

Cheers