@RichardG has pointed to irreducibly complex systems as a problem for evolution. The most famous example is the bacterial flagellum which is also not a species. An irreducibly complex system is a biological system that ceases to function if you remove one of the parts. This is the case for the mammalian middle ear because removing any 1 of the 3 bones causes the middle ear to lose function.
The scientific position is that there is no evidence that humans were the goal of evolution, nor any of the other billions of species. Science does not claim that humans were not the goal since science 1)
doesn’t make claims about universal negatives, and 2) science is tentative. This is why science and faith can coexist which has been the experience of many Christian scientists.
This forum and many others mince and dice minute the nuance of the god v science debate. In my opinion, there are two world views: God did it v science explains the world. They are separate. Faith is a hope and a wish rooted in the fear of death and particularly what happens to our mental reality after death. Faith is a weak response to that which is naturally stupendous and that which we just can’t know. The scientific method, on the other hand, (which applies to the big academic disciplines, but also how you drive your car), explains things to a meaningful level of confidence. You use the scientific method everyday; it informs your decisions about 99%. If your lawn mower won’t start, you employ the scientific method: is there fuel and is there spark? Or you could pray. Which works best?
Christianity if fiction; meaningful to a couple billion of us, but it’s only a comforting story gilded by cathedrals and ceremony. The scientific method just is and it explains the world far better than religion.
An irreducible system has interdependent parts, not just one complex structure. Each section is in itself made up of several parts but that is not the point. The point is that each section has to develop in parallel. They rely on each other not just their own completion. It is this interdependency that evolution would find hard to develop randomly.
Philosophy as practiced is the study of Being, or Isness. As far as I can tell Being is Simple, and therefore Absolute. When we believe that GOD created the universe as we do then it follows that the Triune GOD of the Bible created the universe in a way that is both One and Many, both unified and complex, whjch is what GOD did as we can clearly observe.
On the other hand if the God of Being created the universe ex nihilo, then it follows that He would create it in a way that is Simple, which it is not which evolution demonstrates. This is why Bro. Mitchell and I believe is evolution as proof of the GOD of LOVE.
Today we have much confusion because many people inside and outside the Church believe that GOD is a God of Being, Power, and Control, even though the Bible in the NT makes it clear that GOD is not. I am trying to clear up this confusion, which admittedly is not easy or simple.
I am glad that Einstein did not have this attitude toward Newton’s theories. The best thing about science is that it claims to be open to question and change.as T_aquaticus says, but you say t56hat this is not true when it comes to evolution and it seems that you are right, which is a shame.
Darwinian Evolution and Ecology are based on radically different understandings of how nature is structured. How can they both be true? But we need ecology if we are not to go the way of the dinosaurs, but many oppose ecology in the name of Darwin and the God of the Philosophers, the God of Being.
Today more than ever we need Science, Theology, and Philosophy that work together to give humans a holistic understanding of who we are and our choices are. MAGA ideology does not work, so we need a much better answer.
" [quote=“paleomalacologist, post:45, topic:51640”]
God could use it or not use it
[/quote]
Is inserting God instead of random deviation. That is not the taught theory of evolution."
Evolution is taught in various ways, often with bad theology tangled up in it. In my experience, it’s usually a confused theological claim rather than outright atheism for academic teaching; the ones claiming that evolution is inherently atheistic are more often the ones ranting in a public forum of some sort (eg, the internet, popular audience books, etc.). If you are trying to argue that claims to advocate atheism by invoking evolution are incorrect, then you are correct, but evolution as a biological pattern is quite well-supported.
But “inserting God instead of random deviation” is still making the error of looking for God within science. God uses mathematically random processes all the time. They may not be random from His perspective, but our best models involve randomness. God is sovereign over the process of creating new kinds of organisms; the patterns used include the mathematically random process of gene mutations, the influence of the environment, and myriad other factors.
If you are going to view God as providential in the theological view of all-knowing then methodology becomes almost irrelevant. The result is what matters. The world is as God knows rather than any intent or guidance.
However, this is an antithesis of a God of love, care, and guidance. God sits on the sidelines and has no plans to fulfill. God would not interfere by sending His son or even answering prayers with any actions that would affect the status quo of what is or will happen. It has happened, so He cannot affect it…
The theology of God out of time throws up logical paradoxes that are almost impossible to resolve. Destiny is not a matter of control but foreknowledge. The mechanics of Evolution are now irrelevant and can be argued without theological consequence. But religion and prayer is also irrelevant. Nothing we do or say can affect God’s providence.
Clearly, for Christianity to work, God must have an answer to this paradox. Unfortunately, it escapes me.
You don’t understand your statements! You don’t know what you are saying.
Plans imply time and you contradict yourself.
How so? That statement out of thin air (you do that a lot) has no basis in anything I’ve said. An omnitemporal God is not tied (either hand), bound by time, no way, no how.
How would that look different in terms of the biology that we see, that’s real? In his providential interventions? They are not detectable ‘scientifically’, but we see his M.O. in timing and placing with respect to where his children are concerned, so we can trust where we cannot see.
Can you see his hand, can you detect his guidance?
Yes, GOD is Sovreign, which means that GOD determines how evolutionary change takes place, not science or Darwin. GOD has determined that it takes place in response to ecological changes, not random gene mutations, as science has taught.
This does not deny the reality of evolution, but corrects a problem in how and why it takes place. If BioLogos as poe4ple of science is truly interested in the truth, it would accept or give evidence why this is wrong, instead of denial.
Science knows why the dinosaurs went extinct and how this effected the evolution of the mammals. This is aq scientific question, not a theological one, but believe it or not, one can effect the other.
Richard, you are correct. If GOD is Absolute, if GOD is out of time, then history, evolution, and Love are irrelevant. The answer is not some fancy theology, but GOD making GODSELF Personal or Trinitarian and allowing us and Creation the freedom to be ourselves within GOD.S Will.
GOD created Time. GOD did not have to create Time, but GOD did, so GOD could create our limited universe and us. Therefore, GOD must live in Time even though GOD is not limited by Time, because God cannot go against GODSELF.
We see the universe as dualistic even though we know that GiOD us Triune. Please read my book The GOD Who RELATES…
I stated the paradox. I stated that I do not have the answer. I did not state that God does not have the answer.
I have always seen Christ as God’s only way of being visible within our time structure. It is also an explanation for the necessity of the Trinty (or something similar).
My “theory” is that God can “interfere” because He knows all outcomes so that HIs actions do not impinge on His gift of freedom. It is a theory, which is why I do not claim the answer. It is a shame that I can admit it while Evolutionists can’t.
Good grief, Richard. What a silly thing to say to someone who is so evidently all about God’s providence. Do you see his physical hand and you can see which way he physically moves things?
I answered your question. You did not claim a scientific or even physical answer.
I have seen God physically change things, yes. I have seen people as the hand of God in this physical Universe. But I doubt if either of these things will satisfy you.
It would appear that your providential approach is just a smokescreen for cessationism.
God is still active in this world. I am still sorry that you cannot see Him. I suggest you think twice before criticising my understanding again.
You don’t know what you are saying.