Science and Miracles

Faith & Science Conversation
21

@Daniel_Fisher

Scientists have conclusively demonstrated that the animal life on Earth shares Common Descent.

So any I.D. proponent who rejects Common Descent is trying to invent his or her own science.

By definition, anything that God does because Nature wasn’t able to do it is, obviously, super-natural, not natural; because “Nature wasn’t able to do it”.

Do we need to find a natural chain of events for everything the Bible describes as miraculous? No. But some Christians attempt to do this to make their miracles more plausible. The most notorious example are the 10 Plagues on Egypt. The number of documentaries that this one idea has spawned is truly impressive.

But BioLogos is not trying to eliminate miracles. It merely supports the legitimacy of the non-miraculous context (such as involved in Evolutionary processes) for the sincere Christian - - when the evidence for natural processes is overwhelming.

1 Like
22

Sir, thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your willingness to engage. Let me write a lengthy response and I would appreciate any thought sormcritiwues of my thinking.

First, the full context of the statement is as follows:

Intelligent Design (ID) does not explicitly align itself with Christianity. It claims that the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe and of the development of life is a testable scientific hypothesis. ID arguments often point to parts of scientific theories where there is no consensus and claim that the best solution is to appeal to the direct action of an intelligent designer. At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena. We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.

So no, I don’t take this as an offensive (rather than defensive) statement, or of attacking ID, but it is clearly in the context of responding to ID and explaining how EC is different. And in that context, I can’t help but recognize an unambiguous “begging the question” fallacy in that statement… consider the same logic in another context:

One political group said, in short, “military action against country X is not an effective strategy to achieving peace.”

Their opposition responded by saying, in the context of pursuing these military actions, “we see no reasons to give up on pursuing effective means for peace.”

That is begging the question… the question at hand, whether or not this military action is or isn’t effective, was not addressed by the response, rather, the effectiveness was assumed.

Similarly, ID claims, in effect, certain phenomena in the cosmos are not “natural phenomena.” The statement that “we do not see … reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for … natural phenomena” assumes, rather than answers, the question at hand.

I recognize of course that this is only a summary statement, but it seems to reflect the approach of BioLogos as a whole, at last among some that I have read… to assume that everything in the cosmos is a “natural phenomenon,” and from that starting point, to “never give up” on pursuing natural explanations for those natural phenomena. Can you appreciate that this method, if rigorously followed, would preclude someone from ever recognizing something to be a “supernatural” phenomenon, and would cause them to miss God’s direct intervention if it in fact were there?

Since we’re touching on Lewis elsewhere, let me address a similar issue he brought up, and see if that helps clarify my logical difficulty. I’ll put that in a separate post.

23

Certainly!

I’m a little weird because my first exposure to ID was through those rare ID voices who accept common descent. So whereas most people here seem to think primarily of the stridently YEC wing of ID, I tend to think more of folks like Ann (Gauger) or Dembski or Meyer, who, while cozy with YEC folks, are decidedly not YEC.

1 Like
24

I think it asks a different question. Should Christians adopt a God of the Gaps, a God who exists in the things we are ignorant of? Many Christians have realized that such an approach is quite dangerous because it confines God to an ever shrinking category of “We don’t know”. Given the track record of scientific inquiry, it seems prudent to look for natural processes and at the same time not limit God to what nature can’t do.

If you take ID to it’s logical conclusion it doesn’t bode well for curiosity and knowledge. It essentially states that everything we currently don’t understand was done by God using processes that we will never understand. It essentially says that we should close up every lab and stop all scientific investigations. Are you trying to figure out how the bacterial flagellum evolved? Well, you might as well stop because God did it. All you have to do is look at the near absence of any scientific research being done by ID proponents. All they do is try to discredit the scientific research done by others.[quote=“Daniel_Fisher, post:22, topic:37527”]
Can you appreciate that this method, if rigorously followed, would preclude someone from ever recognizing something to be a “supernatural” phenomenon, and would cause them to miss God’s direct intervention if it in fact were there?
[/quote]

If your only mode of detecting a supernatural phenomenon is not having a natural explanation, then how do you distinguish between the supernatural and an undiscovered natural process?

25

I was under the impression that Ann Gauger does not accept common ancestry between humans and other apes. I was also under the impression that Meyer’s whole point of his arguments is that the species we see in the Cambrian explosion were separately created and do not share a common ancestor. Do I have this wrong?

1 Like
26

So Lewis, addressing the “methodological naturalism” of critical biblical scholars, observed the following:

’A book’, thinks the author, ‘cannot be written before events which it refers to’. Of course it cannot—unless real predictions ever occur. If they do, then this argument for the date is in ruins. And the author has not discussed at all whether real predictions are possible. He takes it for granted (perhaps unconsciously) that they are not. Perhaps he is right: but if he is, he has not discovered this principle by historical inquiry. He has brought his disbelief in predictions to his historical work, so to speak, ready made…It is no use going to the texts until we have some idea about the possibility or probability of the miraculous. Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts: we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question.

In short, they exercised “methodological naturalism” in their approach to the Bible, and Lewis quite rightly recognized this as an example of begging the question, as well as noting the very problem with it… their naturalistic method guarantees that they will arrive at a natural, and more importantly, a wrong conclusion. If there was any supernatural agency involved, their method will guarantee that they will miss it.

That is the precise concern I have about methodological naturalism in any field, whether biblical study or biology. By saying we will rule out from consideration “immediate divine intervention” or even “intelligent agency” as a possible conclusion from the start, we are all but guaranteed to come to wrong conclusions, if in fact God ever did intervene. As Lewis wisely observed, the biblical scholar or historian that will not allow “miraculous foreknowledge of the future” as a possible consideration will without doubt arrive at wrong conclusions about the Bible, if God ever did provide such miraculous foreknowledge.

Similarly, a biologist who rules out “immediate divine intervention” as a possible consideration from the start, seems to me all but guaranteed to come to wrong conclusions, if in fact God did ever so intervene.

Now, I would of course grant that it is possible that God never has so (directly) intervened in the development of life, and his method for bringing life to be as he did was entirely through what we would call “natural” means. But it seems to me that this ought to be our conclusion, not our assumption.

To unabashedly plagerize and paraphrase Lewis’s words…

The scientist has not discussed at all whether intelligent agency in the biological realm is a possible conclusion. He takes it for granted (exercising “methodological naturalism) that it is not. Perhaps he is right: but if he is, he has not discovered this principle by scientific inquiry. He has brought his rejection of intelligent agency to his scientific work, so to speak, ready made… His work is therefore quite useless to [this] person who wants to know whether intelligent agency has occurred in the natural bological realm.

The bottom line for me is that, when I read a scientist who has embraced methodological naturalism, or the basic BioLogos philosophy… and they are addressing a topic that deals with some extraordinary complexity, some brand new intricately designed organ without known precursor, or the like… some topic where others suggest intelligent agency to be the best explanation…

When they come to the conclusion that natural processes could have accomplished this without any intelligent intervention… I simply cannot be impressed… this is the conclusion their method required them to reach. They could not have concluded intelligent agency even if intelligent agency was, in truth, the actual cause.

So the method makes me reflect the sentiment of Lewis… I ‘know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question.’

27

S[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:24, topic:37527”]
If your only mode of detecting a supernatural phenomenon is not having a natural explanation, then how do you distinguish between the supernatural and an undiscovered natural process?
[/quote]

I assume you’re able to recognize this note from me to you as the result of intelligent agency, and that you’re not having difficulty deciding whether these words reflect an intelligent agent or if they are the result of some undiscovered natural process?

:slight_smile:

28

I also assume that you are not a supernatural deity.

29

Oh, you may well be right. I don’t have time to confirm or disconfirm. But these are people that affirm an old earth, the unfolding of God’s creation over many millions of years, and, unless I’m mistaken (which is altogether possible), some reduced form of common descent. That is, perhaps not universal common descent, but some common descent.

Perhaps I have a fictitious and charitably constructed straw man in my mind, but I thought there were ID folks who believed in the fact of common descent but disagreed with most mainstream science about the engine of common descent (mutations not being able, on their own, to create new information in DNA or whatnot).

30

I’m afraid your posts qualify you for Division Chief of the Ultra Fringe. I mean, really, “The fact that literally almost all the good in the world can be traced back to Jesus”. Sheesh.

31

Hospitals and orphanges are Christian inventions. The idea of equality is traceable to Christianity (and the OT predecessor). Christian Europe was also the source of enlightenment, etc, which propelled science to bring us into the modern age where suffering has been reduced by magnitudes. I could go on, but all good is ultimately derivative of God Himself.

1 Like
32

Christy, as an exercise, I urge you and all the participants on this forum, to read the posts here as if you were an atheist. With an open mind, I hope you’ll see that the parsing, chewing, and yeah-buts will lose their relevance. Only an exercise, mind you. Just try it. Just like I have tried praying. Divine intervention, creationism, edicts of morality, commandments of behavior, the need for faith-affirming ceremony might - POOF! - within your intellect. You’ll then be free to mentally relax. Have a non-spiritual cold one on the patio.

1 Like
33

Why? Does “intelligent agency” have to be supernatural? If there was any evidence of that agency’s application, it could still be found and the agency possibly surmised. If its supernatural character meant that there was no physical evidence of it, then there’s no way for science to regard it. That’s the whole point. You have to suppose that the supernatural and your particular agency exist in order to make the kind of treatment you suggest above. Methodical naturalism means that no such suppositions are made. You’re calling that a supposition that the supernatural doesn’t exist. I call it a reflection of the reality that evidence for the supernatural has never been found. In the case of miracles, for example, people sometimes even deny that it can be found.

His work is therefore quite useless to [this] person who wants to know whether intelligent agency has occurred in the natural biological realm.

Perhaps. But it will still be useful to the person who approaches the question without suppositions and who simply wants to know what the evidence suggests.

34

I don’t understand the point of your exercise. If I actually enjoy the parsing, chewing, and yeah-buts, and they are a source of intellectual and spiritual stimulation for me, not a cause of mental frustration, then what’s it to you? This is how I relax. :wink:

2 Likes
35

I think it would be a bit silly to argue over the purity of their common descent beliefs, so it probably isn’t worth delving into too much. Nonetheless, I think their arguments still boil down to nature being an inadequate explanation for all the biodiversity we see today, and in its stead they propose direct supernatural intervention outside the boundaries of the natural processes described in the theory of evolution.

This is perhaps where their obsession with culture wars creeps into the mix. When they hear someone proposing natural processes they put an “only” at the end of it, and try to smear the position with the “atheist” tag. They reject the idea that God acts through nature, and instead require God to act in contradiction to natural processes. They are so eager to fire salvos at their perceived enemies that they catch fellow Christians in the crossfire.

1 Like
36

Tangentially related to this-- I was catching up on reading CT articles today, and there was one on the Virgin Birth as a historical doctrine that contained this interesting link about virgin births in other species that typically reproduce sexually:

Parthenogenesis. I learn something new every day.

From the article: [quote]But do we really need to just shrug and assume that there’s no connection at all between virgin births in the animal kingdom and the Virgin Birth of Jesus? After all, the one who made everything (Col. 1:16; John 1:3), including animals who experience virgin births, decided to come into his creation through a Virgin Birth.

“You might say God has created a world where such things are possible,” Oliver Crisp, a theologian at Fuller Seminary, said when I put the question to him. “Maybe it’s not so incredible or beyond belief that the Incarnation would start with a virgin birth. Can we make it less ‘weird’ by pointing to other natural processes? Maybe. But it’s still pretty weird! You still need miraculous chromosomes.”

In fact, Crisp suggested, maybe seeing the virgin births in the animal kingdom shouldn’t make Jesus’ virgin birth seem less weird at all. Maybe it should make it seem even more remarkable. “I don’t want to make a direct line. But might it add to our wonderment and delight that God is doing something in the birth of Christ that he doesn’t even do in other creatures who have ‘virgin births’?”

After all, says Crisp, that’s kind of the point of the Virgin Birth. “Christ didn’t need a Virgin Birth to make the Incarnation possible,” he said. “The Virgin Birth is a signal to us that Christ is marked off from the rest of humanity as more than a mere human. Elsewhere in Scripture, God performs signs and wonders around births to underline the fact that this is something we need to pay attention to.” Isaac. Jacob and Esau. John the Baptist. In each case, miraculous conceptions are “signposts that display God’s purpose in the salvation of the world. The miracles tell us to sit up and pay attention.”[/quote]

37

Fascinating tangent. Most of the article is behind the CT paywall, but does it talk about the fact that most parthenogenesis in the animal kingdom produces females? (At least, so says Wikipedia, which is mostly reliable for a basic understanding of things.) What’s particularly challenging in Jesus’s particular case is that a Y chromosome would have to have been created from whole cloth.

38

Maybe this “share with a friend” link will work: Virgin Births Happen All the Time | The Behemoth

39

It did work! And I found this, which is along the lines of what I was saying, but more clearly explained (emphasis added):

Fortunately, Christmas comes around every year, and with it updates on “virgin birth” discoveries in the science press. Generally, such articles wisely steer clear of drawing any connection to Jesus’ birth, apart from noting that a woman giving birth to a baby boy through parthenogenesis would still be a miracle requiring the suspension of natural processes.

(Here’s why, with a refresher from sex-ed class: In humans and most mammals, sex is determined by the XY chromosome. Females have XX chromosomes, and males have XY. You have to have a father to provide the Y chromosome. By contrast, turkeys, Komodo dragons, and many of the other animals that can reproduce through parthenogenesis determine sex through the ZW chromosome system. Males have the ZZ chromosome, while females are ZW. So females can give birth to males. Apart from that, a human mother can’t give birth to a parthenogenic daughter either, due to what’s called genomic imprinting—if you don’t have interaction between genes from two parents, an embryo won’t develop to term. Japanese and Korean biologists were able to turn off this imprinting requirement in mice and created the first documented parthenogenic mammals in a lab. But it took a lot of work that wouldn’t happen naturally.)

1 Like
40

Thanks for providing the link to the CT article, Christy. It presents a very sensible argument for why evangelical Christians are comfortable with accepting Virginal birth as a miraculous but historical fact–and a necessary fact on which their Faith rests. You already know how un-orthodox is my world view, and you are gracious enough not to ‘de-friend’ me for it. I hope you won’t mind, therefore, if I post a few quotes from that CT article, and discuss my reasons for NOT considering a miraculous virgin birth as necessary for my Christian Faith–possible but not necessary.

“We think the argument of silence—that is, that it is not mentioned in the rest of the New Testament or in the early church precisely because it wasn’t controversial—makes a lot of sense. Evangelicals simply assume the reality of the miraculous, in part because many of their own conversions have been nothing less than miracles of grace. We know at an existential level that God interrupts history from time to time. Miracles happen.”
“That other religions have similar stories has no bearing on whether this particular story is historically true. It just indicates that the idea of virginal conception didn’t seem preposterous in that age.”

As I see it, the real miracle is the fact that I am trying to live my life according to the teachings of an unschooled, itinerant preacher that lived in a little Galilean town over 2K years ago. His message must have been overwhelmingly powerful to have upset the Roman empire and come down to me on the other side of the earth. To be sure his message was handed down to hundreds of future generations, would not his virgin birth been mentioned as part of that message to his closest followers, Mark and Mathew? Sorry, but I do not buy the argument of silence. The New Testament is replete with reference to OT prophesies and genealogies that are meant to establish Jesus’ credentials. His message of a God who is the essence of Love and Kenosis is sufficient for me, but I realize that if Jesus had not performed miracles, I would never have heard that message.

A wish for a blessed New Year for everyone on the BioLogos team and Forum
Al Leo