Science and Faith

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

God sits on the sidelines and has no plans to fulfill.

… prayer is also irrelevant. Nothing we do or say can affect God’s providence.

You bind God with time. He is not so bound.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

You bind God with time. He is not so bound.

Sorry, but you have not understood my statements.

A god out of time cannot be bound by it.

Basically you have created a god with one hand tied behind His back (maybe voluntarily)

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

you have not understood my statements.

You don’t understand your statements! You don’t know what you are saying.

@RichardG

no plans

@RichardG

A god out of time cannot be bound by it.

Plans imply time and you contradict yourself.

@RichardG

Basically you have created a god with one hand tied behind His back

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.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

How so?

Sigh.

Time is not the issue.

The issue is the difference between lighting the touch paper and retiring immediately, or sitting on the rocket and guiding it to a destination

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

sitting on the rocket and guiding it to a destination

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.

@RichardG

sitting on the rocket and guiding it to a destination

Can you see his hand, can you detect his guidance?

@Dale

Your incredulity is what is inferring miracles where they don’t belong.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

sitting on the rocket and guiding it to a destination

As God was sitting on the rocket of the evolution of the cosmos, guiding it to the creation of the earth, was his hand detectable?

@Dale

@Paulm12

Some may believe a miracle may be the best explanation for the beginning of life.

Since I’m all about God’s sovereignty and providence, and not unlike the manifold number of circumstances that had to happen in a just so manner for the earth’s plumbing to work correctly, so to speak (including the particular sizes and distances of the earth, the sun and our special moon and their ratios to allow for the total eclipses that we have, called “magic” by one secular astronomer), I’m okay with abiogenesis happening naturally, as another spectacular instance God’s providence.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

Can you see his hand, can you detect his guidance?

Yes, I am sorry that you cannot.

Richard

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@paleomalacologist

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.

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.

@RichardG

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.

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…

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Relates

if GOD is out of time,

I am sorry but our theology diverges once again.

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.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

@Dale

Can you see his hand, can you detect his guidance?

Yes, I am sorry that you cannot.

Richard

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?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

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.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

It would appear that your providential approach is just a smokescreen for cessationism.

Maybe you haven’t read, sad, but it’s believable:
Factual evidence for Christians to rejoice in, remember and recount, and for true seekers to ponder.

@RichardG

I suggest you think twice before criticising my understanding again.

It’s more probable though that it comparable to adding 2 + 2, speaking of twice.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

@Dale

Do you see his physical hand and you can see which way he physically moves things?

I have seen God physically change things, yes.

But you did not see God’s physical hand, was the point.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

But you did not see God’s physical hand, was the point.

Exodus 20 (Bible Gateway NIV)
19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

You ask for the impossible

Richard

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

A deistic God, on the sidelines and not fulfilling plans, is quite different from a God of love, care, and guidance. However, if God is “using” mathematically random processes, then God is not on the sidelines. The Bible pictures God as working through “random” events, such as the casting of lots (mathematically random), weather (mathematically chaotic rather than mathematically random, but humanly random in the sense of unpredictability), and unplanned action (such as the “random” bowshot that hit Ahab). If God is not guiding “random” processes in any way, that excludes a lot of guidance.

People have a range of positions on the degree to which God controls everything that happens (e.g., a more Calvinistic position) versus more allowing things to happen (e.g., a more Arminian position). But neither of those implies that God is simply on the sidelines, not fulfilling plans. (Note: if one wishes to discuss Calvinism versus Arminianism, I would recommend it not be in this thread; also, it would need to have specific relationship to science as well to be on topic for BioLogos.)

To take another example of the error, an ID advocate claimed that we are made either by God or by mindless molecular processes. But this is untrue. Each individual is constantly being made by molecular processes such as development, and metabolism. None of the molecules have minds. If God makes us, He uses mindless molecular processes.

Theoretically, a god (or functional equivalent) could use evolutionary processes in making new kinds of organism, or could use some other processes, or could let “natural” processes do their own thing but be involved in some other aspects of the universe. Evolution, like science generally, is not very theologically informative.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@RichardG

I stated the paradox. I stated that I do not have the answer. I did not state that God does not have the answer.

You should have quit while you were still ahead.

The view that GOD is both Absolute and Relational is not a paradox. It says that GOD is broken. Since we know that GOD is not broken, it would seem good to determine which view is correct. Absolute or Relational, which is what I am trying to do. If you do not want to help me, that is up to you, but I fail to see what wrong in trying to solve the problems GOD gives to us.

First, problem you accept two theologies as true, God as Absolute, which is based on philosophy and GOD as Relational, which is NT-Biblical. They are not equal, but you do not seem interested in determining how and why.

Second, you know that GOD is not bound by our theologies, but

@RichardG

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 i

Third, your theory in effect says that GOD is Relational, which is true, but you stil lleave the Absolute God on the table.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

No that is (ironically) an oversimplification.

“… a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” – Michael Behe

That describes the mammalian middle ear.

@RichardG

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.

The mammalian middle ear meets all of those requirements.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Relates

You should have quit while you were still ahead.

Sorry, but we seem to be at cross purposes. Trying to fathom God has always been futile. The balance between control and freedom is one of the many incongruities of God. Whether chance exists? There is a reason why Urmin and Thuramine ceased to be used. The Ephod had a very brief usage. Obviously God could control chance but it is very doubtful that He needs to let alone chooses to. I see no reason for God to interfere in meteorology that is not actually random but governed by balancing divergent air pressures and temperatures.
I do see a reason for God having more than a passing interest in how nature develops. If Evolution is truly random then we could easily have ended up reptilian. The difference is not the physiology but the mental capacity. But the Bible is adamant that we are created specifically. Whether the idea of the “image of God” is physical or theological, it was never random.
Unfortunately this does give me a jaundiced view of evolution. I admit it. But that does not make arguments automatically any less valid, unless you are going down the ad hominem route.
Obviously I do not see God as broken, or having lost control of His creation. (Unlike people who proclaim original sin, for instance) Random evolution is likewise claiming God had no influence in our makeup, be it physical or mental (we may just as well have stolen it).

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

You ask for the impossible

@RichardG

I have seen God physically change things, yes.

That was your claim. You have only inferred, and hopefully legitimately, to ‘see’ God physically change things, so yeah, duh, my point.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

That was your claim

Are you calling me a liar?

Secondhand miracles are almost impossible to prove. You either believe or you do not. My evidence is firsthand. So you can accept it or not. (But my experiences are not unique)

This conversation has nowhere else to go,

Richard