You and Christy (and others) seem to believe that unless someone convinces us that the Bible and evolution are incompatible, the possibilitythat they are will never dawn on us. This is an erroneous assumption. To most of us who have any familiarity at all with Scriptures, it is immediately obvious.
Thanks Chrisā¦
One fundamental disagreement that exists between you and I here (I think) is my argument that purely natural processes, being wholly deterministic, are devoid of any choice contingency. Nature does not make active choices. Nature cannot steer events toward an intended outcome. Nature is wholly governed by inviolable laws. Without choice contingency, there can be no purpose. Therefore, I donāt see this as an issue that turns on the scientific method; it comes down to logical incoherence.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that what you (and possibly many others are saying) would go something like this: the purpose behind the evolution of life can be found in the establishment of the initial conditions that inevitably yielded all living things, to include mankind; in other words, the programming for the evolution of life was āfront loadedā in the initial conditions of the universe. Would that be a fair thing for me to think?
Sorry but my story is the other way around. I was taught that the Bible and evolution were incompatible but the more I learned about the Bible the more I found that they are not.
2 Likes
"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?"
There still exists a problem, Chris.
You see, today I see evidence for God in the fact that the universe had a beginning. I see evidence for God in the incredible fine tuning of the universe for life. I see evidence for God in the physical laws that govern all matter and energy. I see evidence for God in the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus. I see evidence for God in all of these diverse disciplines, from physics and astronomy to history.
But do you know what else? I see evidence for God in the nature of living organisms. I see clear evidence for design. I see clear evidence for the necessary role of intelligent agency in life.
But my friends at BioLogos tell me that there is no such evidence, and thatās ok. We can see evidence for a purely naturalistic unfolding of life and have faith that God is in there somewhere.
Well I did not have that kind of faith, Chris. Neither did many of my classmates. Neither did many, many others. If we cannot see evidence for God in the unfolding of life, the atheists have a point that is going to be irresistable. It was Darwin - not Galileo or Newton, et al, who āmade it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,ā in the words of Dawkins. It is evolution that is āthe greatest engine for atheism ever invented,ā in the words of the late Wil Provine, and a āuniversal acid that eats through everything we used to believe,ā in the words of Daniel Dennett.
I am guessing that you, like me, can see evidence for God in physics and cosmology, and in the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus. Real evidence that you could bring into a debate and say, ālook here. I have some real good evidence that points to the existence of Godā You and I will outlive this universe and all its physical stuff. I have every confidence, praise God, that we will see each other in eternity. Why can you not see the same type of evidence for God - the kind you can bring into a debate - in His crowning achievement? And if you cannot see it, should you be surprised that believers are becoming atheists over this question?
You are arguing against a straw man. My point is that there is no purpose in purely physical processes. Is there purpose manifested in the laws of physics themselves? That is a different question. I would answer yes to that question. Is there purpose in the universe? That, too is a different question. Again I would answer yes. But is there purpose in physical processes themselves? No, there isnāt. There is no choice contingency. Nature cannot make bona fide choices that steer events toward intended outcomes. Nature is wholly governed by inviolable laws. It is incapable of choice contingency. And without choice contingency - the ability to make bona fide choices, there can be no intention. Moreover, intention (and therefore purpose) is exclusive to intelligent agency.
That purely physical processes are devoid of purpose is an ontological fact
because you have been given greater context. You know (at least inasmuch as you can trust my word) that as a student, when I came to believe that the TOE was true, I acted in a manner completely consistent with the belief that the TOE and the Bible make contradictory claims, concluding that the Bible must therefore not be true and God must not exist. Knowing this about me, you should be aware that I would not be against the TOE for purely Biblical reasons. I chose the TOE, thinking it to be true, and I became an atheist as a result. Biblical reasons hold no sway to the atheist, which is what I was for a long, long time. It was by no means Biblical reasons that convinced me against evolution. It was the evidence from life. It was only when I realized that the evidence from life clearly shows that life requires a Creator, that the evolutionary narrative fell apart as scientific authority in my eyes. My rejection of evolution had nothing to do with the Bible.
because natural processes do not steer events toward intended outcomes. Natural processes do not make choices.
Hereās what I mean: Eddie nails a 30 foot putt (You da Man!). Clearly, the ball ended up in the hole by design, or intention, or purpose. But whence the purpose? Can we say it was the purpose of the ball to end up in the hole? Was it the purpose of the four fundamental forces of nature? Or was it Eddieās purpose? If there is any purpose in natural processes, that purpose is outside of the processes themselves. Thus when you say:
I am going to have to say that no, the acorn does not grow by natural processes, nor does embryonic development proceed through natural processes. In both cases, incredible molecular machines and data sharing systems actively and constantly work to keep the living systems alive and developing. On the one hand, no natural laws are broken. But on the other hand, the growth you cite is accomplished not by natural processes, but by incredible molecular machinery and data processing; both of which are signatures exclusive to intelligent agency. Nature does not build data sharing systems and technologically advanced machine systems to accomplish any purposes.
I sent you this message on purpose. No laws of nature have been violated in the process. But it was not the intention of my computer keyboard or the four fundamental forces that you receive this message.
Thanks for noting the validity of my argument! Unfortunately, nothing of what you say here argues against the truth of P2. P2 is rooted in ontological reality. Natural processes cannot steer events toward intended outcomes. Natural processes cannot make choices. Natural processes are wholly governed by inviolable laws. Thus, they are devoid of purpose. In and of themselves, Nick, they are devoid of purpose. You can propose that natural processes were set in motion on purpose to achieve an intended outcome, but you cannot find that purpose in those natural processes themselves. Any purpose is transcendent.
To some extent, the problem lies in the disconnect you place between nature and God. You state āNature does thisā and āNature does thatā whereas I think many here see God in the midst of nature, and can support that with Romans 1:19, Psalms 20, Job etc.
Just as Thomas needed evidence of Jesusā resurrection, I understand that desire fully, but ultimately realize that we have to accept some things on faith. ID may offer a philosophic position that is attractive, but it does not provide evidence, if that is what you are looking for. Peter Enns writes well about the intersection of doubt and faith, and may be worth your time looking at.
Thanks Roger. I donāt know that there is really any point of contention between you and I about what you have written here with one possible exception:
The difference I am seeing in my interactions with and readings from BioLogos folks is theological, not evolutionary.
I would love to read your book if I had the time, and perhaps I will some day. The title and subject are compelling and I pretty much agree with what you have said here, but for now, the realities of running a business and a large family, as well as making sure I spend enough time with our Creator, leaves me precious little free time. Heck, look how long it took me to reply to this post!
Anyway, thank you.
My point, Christy, is that the Bible and the TOE make mutually exclusive claims about life
I find it odd that you would conclude that based on what I said.
1 Like
Thank you for your response. My understanding of the AP is somewhat different from yours.
The scientific facts on which the AP is based are clear. There is a significant number of physical constants which must exist in a very precise manner in our universe for intelligent life to exist. That is a fact, but the question is What does it mean?
It is obvious that this is not an accident or random occurrence. Therefore it would follow that the universe is rationally planned and governed. This approach has led to the search for and discovery of other constants which have deepened our understanding of how our universe works.
On the other hand if one thinks that the universe is not rationally planned and governed, then you can say that of course these constants exist, because humans exist. If humans did not exist it is because they did not exist, but we would not be here to observe the universe that did come into being.
The question remains, Is does what we observe rationally exist because the probability of ransom coincidence is absurdly unreal, nor not? As a result of this dilemma some scientists began to look for an alternative way to account for the facts of the AP without saying that the universe was rationally planned. In an interesting article in Discover Magazine (2008 December /10 Scienceās Alternative by Tim Folger) which I read online, the founders of the Multiverse Theory almost say that.
While the multiverse is an answer to AP, it is also dependent on AP. If AP is a 10 to the 500 billion chance occurrence, then the Multiverse must generate 10 to the 500 billion random universe to have an even chance to create on like ours. Now how this is in any way feasible or not seems very unlikely. How humans could know whether any of this is true is very unlikely. Certainly this would make no difference in our lives on earth.
Any interesting aspect of this for BioLogos is the relationship between evolution and the multiverse theory. It is expected that life would likely exist on planets in our universe where the environment is very close to ours, because contrary to Darwin, environment produces life, not genetics.
Similarly it is assumed that different universes with different characteristics would probably not produce as we know it life, but maybe some different types of life. Lee Smolin has theorized that new universes break off like cells mutating. I think that he was kidding, but others take this seriously.
Another aspect of multiverse theory is the concept that whet ever can happen does happen, most of the time in a new universe. This has been applied to history in saying that whet could happen in history, like the election of DJT will happen, if in some lucky new universe, if the voters do not elect him in ours.
It seems to me that the inability of any scientifically described process to demonstrate purpose is a feature, not a flaw.
If we live in a two tiered world, the supernatural and the natural, then human life has no integrity. This is unacceptable to almost everyone, except to perhaps those who have no integrity. .
Any thoughts on rain? Do you not see how identifying rain as a natural process pens the door wide for believers to become atheists? Isnāt āIntelligent Precipitationā superior to the idea that rain just somehow forms by itself in the air and falls to the ground in a completely unintelligent way?
4 Likes
Think of it as impassioned defense of a point that I find to be critical. Perhaps you are not of the same mind as those I have read (to include people know to be associated with BioLogos), but the embrace of evolution requires a decidedly darwinian hermeneutic that is completely absent in Biblical exegesis pre-Darwin; one that requires us to call into question the authority of the prophets, the Gospels, and the epistles. I hesitate to go here, because it takes us off focus, but if Adam was not literally the first man; a special Creation of God, then we cannot believe Luke (The geneology of Jesus, chapter 3), we cannot believe Paul (1 Cor 15 and 1 Tim 2), nor can we believe Jesus Himself (Matt 19 and Mark 10). And if we are willing to sacrifice the authority of these, then I have to say that Rossiter is indeed spot on.
I say rather, that āif Adam was not literally the first manā ā¦ then I cannot believe what one modern tradition teaches about how the Bible must be understood.
Iām not sure what a ādarwinian hermeneuticā is, but it would probably go without saying that such a thing wouldnāt have been around before Darwin. But there were hermeneutics that engaged the Bible in other kinds of terms that wouldnāt match up with the modern hermeneutical habits that tightly orbit enlightenment notions. And those came from long before Darwin.
1 Like
The one thing Evolution has is FIRSTS ā¦ maybe not so much from the human perception ā¦ but certainly from the view of the Divine.
SOME hominid, somewhere, became the FIRST MORALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN. And that morally responsible human had morally responsible children.
[I donāt think we can extend the parallel to the Eve/Spouse situation ā¦ unless you want to think God *intervened* so that TWO morally responsible (mating) adults were available to each other.]
No matter what evolutionary scenario a person may preferā¦ there is SOMEBODY who was the first morally responsible human .
Speak for yourself.
Itis not an ontological truth that God does not guide events on earth (sometimes). Show me the evidence that God did not steer evolution. Donāt try to argue that because evolution could have unfolded with out God, then it must have. I could have had Italian for dinner, yet here I sit eating a taco. When I finish this taco, there will be a receipt in my wallet with the word Taco written on it. That is evidence. What evidence do you have that God did not steer evolution from time to time to bring about the world that we see around us? If you have no evidence then P2 is a faith statement.