I agree whole-heartedly! Have you any comments on how to distinguish between the two? If you and I differ on what constitutes evidence, where do the differences lie?
Do you agree with Christy (item 24) that “my definition of ‘this world’ is not equivalent to ‘the physical world.’ It is based on my experience of other dimensions of reality. It’s not scientific evidence, and it is subjective, but as I have said, empiricism is not the only path to knowledge”?
If so, fine — people can believe what they want. But the question remains: is the process of scientific empiricism proper and sufficient to this physical world? Is it compatible with “other-dimension alternatives”? And if not, which approach is most appropriate for guiding moral choices having real physical consequences in this physical world?
My apologies if I don’t read your response til tomorrow. My head hurts.
I don’t think I am going to succeed in arguing that the co-instants (one of my substitute words for ‘coincidences’ meaning not a chance!) that they are legitimate and objective evidence, especially if you cannot allow for them in Maggie’s case, an incredible interrelated set of five discrete and otherwise unrelated ones in 48 hours. Of course, I don’t mean ‘incredible’ literally, but just as an emphatic adjective, because they are objective facts that are credible and meaningful (remember ChatGPT’s conclusion), especially since I have had similar sets of providential ‘life path changing’ co-instants in my own life, only not five in two days!
The first was also actually a set of five (I hadn’t made that correlation before now), but they were spread over four years (more if you start looking at the necessary precursors that had to be orchestrated) and included were some fun incidental ones that did not affect the end result. It started almost sixty years ago. (I’m an old man in my early to mid-geezerhood. ; - )
Another major set of twelve(!) life path changing ones concluded exactly thirty years ago tomorrow (in my time zone, 3/1, about 15 minutes from now ; - ), which fact is ‘coincidental’ but not very significant, at least from my perspective and what I know right now. That dozen occurred over a period of only about one year. Both sets are fun stories.
After a little back and forth due to a mistake I keep making with how series are defined, I made this statement (in bold) and ChatGPT’s response follows:
In a situation where the number of steps can proceed to infinity, it would then be impossible for the number of steps to become actually infinite
Yes, that is correct. In a situation where the number of steps can proceed to infinity, it is still not possible for the number of steps to become actually infinite. This is because infinity is not a number that can be reached or attained through a finite process.
Instead, when we talk about an infinite process or an infinite sequence of steps, we are referring to a process or sequence that can be continued indefinitely without ever reaching a final state or end point.
For example, some iterative algorithms involve a process that repeats a certain set of steps over and over again, potentially an infinite number of times. However, even if this process continues indefinitely, it still does not reach an actual infinite number of steps. Instead, it simply continues without ever reaching a final result.
In summary, even if a process or sequence of steps can proceed to infinity, it never actually reaches infinity, but rather continues indefinitely.
And then I asked it if it would be fair to say infinity is not a numerical value:
Yes, it would be fair to say that infinity is not a numerical value. Infinity is a concept that represents a quantity or a property of being unbounded, endless, or without limit. It is often used in mathematics to describe certain processes, functions, or sets that can continue indefinitely without ever reaching a final state or limit.
In mathematics, infinity is often treated as an idealized concept that represents the limit of certain processes or the behavior of certain functions as they approach infinity. However, infinity itself is not a real number that can be used in calculations or arithmetic operations.
Instead, infinity is often treated as a symbol or a concept that is used to describe certain mathematical properties or behaviors, but it is not a numerical value that can be manipulated like other numbers.
Yeah, pretty much. I’m not sure what she means by ‘other dimensions’, although she’s probably said somewhere and I’ve forgotten (a definite likelihood, sadly). Awe and wonder are a little difficult to dissect with logical positivism, for instance. I don’t think of God’s providential interventions on behalf of his children as ‘other dimensional’, but maybe that’s because they have been such a significant influence of how I’ve experienced physical reality for so long. I certainly do not limit all of reality to the merely material – God is a more solid reality to me than much of what the physical world has to offer.
The question is not whether ID or evolution can explain the incredible complexity of the cell. For ID, certainly the Creator is all powerful, all wise and all knowing, and so without effort, he could create as complex a cell as he wishes. And evolutionists have an explanation may be acceptable, at least to the evolutionary community.
But the real question is, “Which explanation best matches reality?” Not just is an intuitively acceptable correlation with (and I find this to give insight into the evolutionary mind) evolutionary reality. Is there more than one kind of reality or truth? I think not.
I should have just said PROVIDENTIAL REALITY (please excuse the playful poke ; - ), because no, there is not more than one kind of reality or truth. I forget (in my old age), are you a YEC or an OEC ID advocate? My “intuitively acceptable” was said as a non-scientist. Are you familiar with the implications of neutral drift and the neutral theory of evolution? Evolution can indeed add information and complexity. Are you familiar with exaptation and co-option? They are real.
(and I find that amusing – it does not give me insight into the ID advocate mind, because that is where I’ve been and learned better. ID is not science nor can it be.) There is only one reality, and God uses his providence to accomplish his will, including evolution.
Skepticism is skepticism. I don’t know why anyone would think there would be a special brand of this for science… unless it is the simple insistence upon following the scientific methodology of testing hypotheses and providing written procedures which give the same result no matter what you want or believe.
Skepticism is the more widely applicable tool used in all of academia… in the humanities as well as in the sciences. If anything skepticism is even more important in the humanities because the scientific methodology isn’t as applicable.
Curious. How do you define science in a way that excludes intelligent design? I define science as a search for the truth, not limited to naturalistic answers.
After all, as a follower of Christ, you probably believe that Jesus made the lame to walk, the blind to see, raised the dead to life, and after he died on the cross, he came out of the grave alive. These are all examples of supernatural (above nature) intervention by God that you likely accept. So when we see evidence in nature that is best explained by intelligence–God’s intelligence–why dismiss that as unscientific?
I am YEC, and a member of Design Science Association, a group of about 200 that meets once a month in Portland, Oregon. This February, we had the following presentation. It is awe inspiring and God honoring. I didn’t view it from the perspective of an evolutionist, so this is not a guarantee, but I don’t recall anything in this presentation that any believer on the BioLogos forum would find objectionable. If you have BioLogos meetings, you could probably watch this at your meeting with great enjoyment and profit. It is well presented and has some great insights into God’s providential care. And watching it will help to affirm that all those who honor God and follow Christ have much more in common and much less on what we differ.
Here is an invite into the mind of a YEC: DSA LIVE Feb. 18 - Col. Jeffrey Williams –The Work of His Hands: A View Of God’s Creation From Spacehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7CwtcjlFRU
NASA Astronaut Col. Jeffrey Williams (U.S. Army, Ret.) has flown on four space missions to the International Space Station. Having spent 534 days in space, he holds the record of the longest time in space for an American man.
You don’t. You define science in a way that excludes unsubstantiated assertions, irreproducible results, untestable claims, imprecise reasoning, and falsehood.
The challenge for ID proponents is to come up with a precise and reproducible test that can differentiate between design and non-design, show that it really does differentiate between design and non-design, and then provide examples that demonstrably pass the test.
Irreducible complexity is often cited as a test for ID, but as far as I’m aware, the examples that are usually cited as being irreducibly complex (e.g. the bacterial flagellum) have been shown not to be.
In the absence of such a test, you may have some qualitative arguments for design, but unfortunately they don’t meet the stringent standards of rigour and quality control needed to qualify as science.
It should also be noted that even if Intelligent Design can be demonstrated to scientific standards, that would not reduce the age of the earth from 4.5 billion years, and it would not change the fact that biological populations change and diverge over time, and that mutations and natural selection can and do add new information to the genome.
Is he really a YEC and not an OEC (or someone who just doesn’t address the issue)? The video you’ve included is an hour and a half long, so perhaps you could be so kind enough as to give a timestamp to the place where he actually nails his colours to the YEC mast?
Your hidden assumption is that evolutionism is the default position, therefore ID only bears the burden of proof. But even Dawkins has stated that biological structures have the appearance of being designed, so he and his fellow evolutionists bears the burden of showing that they are not.
We see echo-location, navigation systems and much more in biological systems. Scientists have also designed such systems, although inferior to those found in nature. So why do you accept what scientists have engineered as designed, but insist that the far more advanced systems in nature must have arisen through only through natural processes?
Of course, you are accusing ID of all these things, falsely.
And Stephen Meyer has done this brilliantly. But what you are really saying is that you want an argument and examples which you will accept. That is, of course, a fool’s errand, as you will never accept any such argument.
Again, to your satisfaction. But I have only seen facile arguments against irreducible complexity. Behe has in my estimation more than adequately answered all his critics.
I have observed that there are poor and even false arguments on both sides of the debate. I think you would agree that false arguments and even deception and lies on the part of evolutionists do not discredit evolutionary arguments as a whole. Ditto, ID.
Natural selection does not add new information to the genome. It only selects from that information that is already there. Natural selection is not the same as evolution. It is a process that both evolutionists and creationists find to be active in sorting out deleterious mutations, a entirely different discussion.
Romans 1:20 states, “For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”
My question for believers in this forum is: Given this verse, how can creation show God’s invisible qualities if what creation shows is only the natural processes of cosmic and biological evolution? Or does God hide his involvement?
He is well known as YEC in that community. But in his presentation, it was not his purpose to defend YEC, but rather to demonstrate the glory and wisdom of God through his creation. All Christians appreciate and share this message. And we can celebrate that which we hold in common, which is certainly far more than where we differ on the method of creation.
Col Williams message is distinct from YEC, although certainly supportive of it. There is no need or benefit for a YEC to insert YEC in every conversation or message.
An excellent question, and one I’ll have to think about. I also find that is also one of my favorite verses, showing how observations made by science are true and reliable, free of deception being representative of the nature and qualities of God, and thus true. Which means the measurements of the age of the earth, the size and age of the universe, DNA sequencing, geology, fossils and so forth are accurate and true.
I assume–as a fundamental axiom–that the Concrete Inanimate content of the Cosmos moves and behaves in a rational, albeit, incompletely explicable manner. Doing so, it is indistinguishable, as far as I can tell, from an ID Cosmos and not, therefore, sufficient proof of the existence of my God who is not, Himself, “Concrete Inanimate” stuff but is, instead, Concrete Animate and Life itself, in all His parts.
It can process some realities better than some realities (real persons) can.
