Sy Garte - Uniting Christian Science & Faith Streams?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

About ten years ago, @sygarte was pretty active on these forums, but he would pop in from time to time since then. There was a forum thread in 2021 about his podcast interview with @jstump that was discussed a bit, and he’s got an author page on the main Biologos site.](Sy Garte - Person - BioLogos).

Anyways, I saw that he has a new book coming out:

image
image1000×1500 88.9 KB

The endorsements were really interesting to me, because there were various authors in the science & faith discussion that don’t normally come together (unless it’s like one of those four views books). You can read about them on his website, but we have:

  • HUGH ROSS, PhD, pastor, astrophysicist and founder and senior scholar of Reasons to Believe
  • PERRY MARSHALL, author of Evolution 2.0
  • DENIS ALEXANDER, PhD, emeritus fellow of St Edmund’s College, Cambridge University, and emeritus director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
  • FAZALE “FUZ” RANA, PhD, biochemist and president and CEO of Reasons to Believe
  • JIM STUMP, PhD, author of The Sacred Chain , vice president of BioLogos, and host of The Language of God podcast
  • MELISSA CAIN TRAVIS, PhD, fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture
  • SHARON DIRCKX, PhD, speaker, broadcaster, former neuroscientist, and author of Am I Just My Brain?

It’s an interesting list of individuals, but perhaps it is a sign of the way forward in these science faith conversations? The Amazon description says:

Is it possible that one of the biggest obstacles to harmonizing science and faith can finally be overcome? Respected biologist and former atheist Sy Garte says the answer is yes.

A flash point for much of the science vs. faith divide has been Darwinian evolution. Sharing the same mistaken belief that science contradicts the Bible, many scientists and Christians have concluded that the worlds of science and religion are at odds. But according to biologist Sy Garte, PhD, evolution is irrelevant to the harmony of faith and science. And revolutionary new developments in biology are providing stronger evidence than ever before of a purposeful creator God. In this book, Dr. Garte combines the latest research with a biblical worldview as he explains:

  • why biology is at the threshold of a major transition, and why new theories beyond evolution are needed to make further progress
  • why evolution by natural selection isn’t as fundamental to biological science as many people think―and how divisions over evolution are bad for the church
  • why misunderstandings about both the Bible and science have caused many people to unnecessarily abandon Christianity
  • how new evidence of purpose, agency, and decision-making at the cellular level points to a creator God
  • how the origin of life and human consciousness show that a reductionist, purely materialistic view of life is untenable and ignores new advances in science

In Beyond Evolution, Sy Garte challenges both scientists and people of faith to follow the evidence wherever it leads―and argues powerfully for why that evidence warrants a belief in God.

So to me it makes sense that it would get endorsements from Reasons to Believe and the Discovery Institute because it reflects kind of what they’ve been saying all along - railing against evolution by natural selection or “mainstream” evolutionary theory, and their messaging you can see clear Design in nature in an apologetics sense. @jstump says something similar to what I might say to one of my classes at my Christian University, “…that doesn’t prove their origin is an Author and Giver of Life, but it certainly points us in that direction.” I guess I’m wondering, what do you think of Sy’s approach? Is it unwarranted? Can anything be gleaned from the sciences with relation to faith and God’s handiwork? Is this the inevitable end and common goal of all Christian and science writing? Are all these streams going to merge someday under one banner and society argues about other things more now?

4 Likes
2

I first heard that from a Lutheran pastor turned biology professor half a century ago!

I decided to order it. From what you posted and from a couple of reviews I’d say he’s right on track, but I want to read the whole thing, especially the parts about the current status of evolutionary research.

1 Like
3

I’ll be interviewing him for the podcast again about this book. We’ll agree about a lot, and argue (graciously) about a little.

6 Likes
4

He discussed his new book with a leading ID proponent on Sean McDowell’s YT channel. I got the impression that perhaps the ‘typical’ evolutionist might disagree with some of what he says in the book. The IDer was generally positive about the book whilst clearly disagreeing with some. I would be interested to see a review from an evolutionist who maintains the standard understanding of evolutionary theory with its updates. Perhaps someone from Biologos?

3 Likes
5

Just going by the people who endorsed and the vague descriptions, my skeptical senses are tingling. Marshall’s “Evolution 2.0” and the “Third Way” in general is nothing more than a fanciful story layered on top of bog standard evolutionary theory, at least in my opinion. The phrase “why evolution by natural selection isn’t as fundamental to biological science as many people think” makes me think they haven’t learned about the advances in evolutionary theory from the 1960’s, much less from the last 20 years in the genomic age. " how the origin of life and human consciousness show that a reductionist, purely materialistic view of life is untenable and ignores new advances in science" makes me suspicious that it is going to go down the “quantum consciousness” road which I don’t find that compelling. Something quantum happens in microtubules . . . . therefore what exactly?

But again, this is judging a book by its cover. I will definitely be checking out the interview when it comes out and hope to be happily surprised if I have it entirely wrong, or if my criticisms are addressed with meaningful findings.

4 Likes
6

Omg for how long will intellectuals without phd’ s have to explain the nuckleheads like this that SCIENCE ISNT AT ODDS WITH THE BIBLE!!

Im going to swear in a momemt frustration at stupid is stupid does.

These supposedly highly educated dumbasses parrot statements that no YEC believes or makes.

This claim is a copout inserted into the YEC debate by Darwinian proponents…its a flat out lie!

I am immediately suspicious of, and going to question, the authenticity and credibility of this book. Its basic premise “science is at odds with the bible” is flat out false!

One cant insert ones own words into someone elses narrative, words which are not true, then attempt to use that as the point of order…its absurd and stupid. What is wrong with these people…i cannot believe something so blantantly wrong is being used to facilitate a theme for an entire book.

Darwinian conclusions are the issue…not science. Atheists, Mormans, Scientolgists, Buddhists, Muslims, Aboriginals, Maori, Hindu, Catholocs…ANE or YEC… we all use “science” but not all align with the Darwinian interpretation!

The last time i checked, science has a bit at the end of experiments called conclusions. These conclusions are an attempt to make sense of the evidence…they are not always absolutes…very often conclusions are not absolutes…especially when we cant go back in time millions of years to historically check our assumptions.

7

YEC, however, can be scientifically ruled out.

8

Adam, you may want to read that again. The book claims to prove that it’s not an issue, and that science and the Bible are not at odds. Most of those folks are PhDs.

I don’t agree with what I think is their method, but that’s beside the point. I suspect I can learn from them, too.

Thanks.

1 Like
9

Only when other nuckledheads want to parrot the idea that YEC science is pseudoscience.

10

No the book is making a false claim that science is at odds with the bible then attemptimg to use that as a point of order in which it attempts to argue that it doesnt have to be(or isnt).

There is a difference between an atheist making such a point of order and a Christian making it. The insertion of Christian into the debate is devisive because the inference is flat out wrong from the Christian perspective because all Christian scientists use science.

The claim a christians science isnt science i would argue can only be made in ignorance of the scientific method itself…and that is also why the generalised statment often thrown around on these forums “pseuodscience” is so ridiculous. Its parroted back without even bothering to properly check the method used. Its the same premise that saw Mary Schweitzers original finding ridiculed…thing is, after proper examination, the parrots were defeathered. We can all use the same method and draw different conclusions from it based on existing assumptions…that is not pseudoscience.

I would argue that, where the method isnt flat out errant, the pseudoscience bit is often wrongly applied on these forums to the philosophical conclusion…not the science itself.

1000019953
10000199531812×2176 246 KB

11

This is why YEC is considered pseudoscience.

“No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.”–Answers in Genesis

A lack of falsifiability is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

3 Likes
12

i see no contradiction there…note they use the caveat “can be valid if”

What about bible miracles then…
Christ:

walked on water
Was killed but then apparently rose back to life again,
Floated against the laws of gravity up into the sky and dissappeared from site,

Apprently levitated went off into outerspace defying the notion we cant survive in a vacume,

These are all falsifyable in that they all go against the known laws of science and yet Biologos Scientists are not “pseudo” for actively engaging in convincing others they are historical events right?

13

Right. They throw out any evidence that contradicts their interpretation of scripture. That means YEC lacks falsifiability. That makes it pseudoscience.

2 Likes
14

I’m confused. I thought Dr Garte is saying that there is no contradiction. Maybe I misunderstood.
Thanks.

I hope your day is going well.
Thanks for your interaction.

Is it possible that one of the biggest obstacles to harmonizing science and faith can finally be overcome? Respected biologist and former atheist Sy Garte says the answer is yes.

A flash point for much of the science vs. faith divide has been Darwinian evolution. Sharing the same mistaken belief that science contradicts the Bible, many scientists and Christians have concluded that the worlds of science and religion are at odds. But according to biologist Sy Garte, PhD, evolution is irrelevant to the harmony of faith and science. And revolutionary new developments in biology are providing stronger evidence than ever before of a purposeful creator God. In this book, Dr. Garte combines the latest research with a biblical worldview as he explains:

2 Likes
15

What about bible miracles then…
Christ:

walked on water
Was killed but then apparently rose back to life again,
Floated against the laws of gravity up into the sky and dissappeared from site,

Apprently levitated went off into outerspace defying the notion we cant survive in a vacume,

These are all falsifyable in that they all go against the known laws of science and yet Biologos Scientists are not “pseudo” for actively engaging in convincing others they are historical events right?

16

There’s no existing evidence to contradict them, and no one pretends as if they are scientific in any meaningful sense. The miracles found in the Bible are beyond the reach of science.

This isn’t true for the history of life, the geologic history of Earth, or the cosmological history of the universe. We have a universe full of evidence for these histories. YEC states outright that any such evidence that contradicts their views should automatically be ignored. That’s pseudoscience.

4 Likes
17

Andromeda galaxy, 2-1/2 million light years distant, can be seen with the naked eye. No instruments necessary. The conclusion from that is that the light has been traveling that long. Simple. No weird light getting all winded and tired. No light traveling at different speeds depending on who’s looking. Just basic like planning a trip so the speed limit from A to B will get you there in what time. There is no distant starlight problem. If light takes a couple of million years to travel from our nearest major neighbor galaxy, that’s no problem. You do not have to overthink it. That does not need explaining away. It is what it is.

That YEC goes through all sorts of contortions to invent alternate ‘conclusions’ for no other purpose than to fit it all into 6,000 years, is what makes YEC pseudoscience. There is no real scientific curiosity, it is all about the apologetics. Why does YEC fill the Ark with dinosaurs, just to have every last one, small and large, conveniently and promptly go extinct? Certainly nothing to do with science. Why is the planet Mercury plastered with craters? YEC responses to such easy questions as can occur to a child, are strained and ridiculous. You do not have to go deep to see that YEC is nonsense.

3 Likes
18

Oh butbthere is…scientific law of gravity a prominent one.

If i told you “i levitated up into the sky…that im god because i can do that” i know you wouldnt believe me…no one would. Why? Because we all know its scientifically impossible.

So again, we habe evidence here on these forums and attached website that Biologos scientists are clearly putting forward the pseudoscience that Christ rose from the dead and went up into the sky, through outer space and into heaven where he still is alive today…2000 years later.

Also i note the following on this threads subject author…he cites a response he recieved online where a women writes…

“Why do I cry while listening to music, why do I seek love and not just sex (the latter is easy – the evolutionary pressure to procreate, but love? where is that from?)”

Now if it wasmt for the pseudoscience of Christian scientists with regard to miracles and God, the good professor would have given her the scientific answer to her question…

She is asking the question, where did love (morality) come from?

The scientific answer is:

1000019954
10000199541812×2176 216 KB

19

If you couldn’t present any evidence then science would be silent on the matter. If we had closed circuit TV showing you hadn’t levitated when you claimed to have levitated, then we would have evidence falsifying your account.

Listen, we could keep going around and around and around with this silliness. YEC is pseudoscience because there is no evidence you can show YEC organizations that they would accept as evidence against their claims. That’s because it’s pseudoscience. I even asked you in another thread what features a geologic formation would need in order to disprove a young Earth or a recent global flood. You couldn’t come up with any. That’s because there are no possible falsifications of YEC which is a hallmark of pseudoscience. There is no fossil I could ever show you that would change your mind. There is no shared genetic feature between species that you would accept as evidence for shared ancestry. YEC is a dogma, not a science.

4 Likes
20

You are playimg both sides of the coin there…

Science Fact 1: morality comes from Social Darwinian Evolution…not the bible. Science tells us that the bible account, because of much earlier existence of hominids amd neandethals, that the bible account simply plagerised evolutionary developmemt of morality (love).

Science fact 2: The above means Biologos Darwinian Scientists are forwarding pseudoscience in claiming Christ died and rose from the dead, rose up into the sky, went off into outer space, and is alive today 2,000 years later. The bible claims he did all this physically…because Mary and doubting Thomas could touch the resurrected saviours skin!

Your statement there about geological features and falsifying…the onus is not on me to attempt to do that…you dont even do that from your side…all you do is immediately generalise the opposition by calling it “pseudo”…the word is your evidence apparently.

Example: Mary Schweitzer falsified the accepted view that tissue could not survive millions of years…she was shouted down…her science must be mistaken…turns out, her science is valid…so why are you trying to make the claim YEC science isnt falsifiable? Are you grumbling about their science or their conclusions from the science? Its pretty obvious “the conclusions”!

Personally, i dont think falsifiable is a good definition of determining sound science…repeatable is a better explaination…we can all do math and derive similar answers with a different method…even the wrong answer! The difference here is that we have a 3000 year old historical writings that must also be considered (included) in the science…Christians cannot just pretend the bits of the binle that oppose Darwinian science must have some unknown literary value or were written for someone else amd dont apply to us, or are just flatout wrong and therefore ignored…

If Christ is God, surely God knows his own history…He created it afterall.

Given Christs statement in GREEK, and after more than a century of Roman cultural influence (not ancient Hebrew), mirrors Moses writings in HEBREW after 400 years of Egyptian influence and also over 1,000 years earlier…its pretty obvious the ANE “literary” claim is not supported by the facts…its made up to try to further the ANE belief…nothing more.

Clearly you are conflating the two and Mary Schweitzers example highlights the problem, the method isnt whats in question there…its the conclusion.