The ID movement’s large-scale view of evolution: America is at stake

Faith & Science Conversation
145

I mean, even if a Christian is an evolutionist (as I am) and accepts that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe 13.7 billion years old, he is still, in a broad sense, a “creationist,” though not in the problematic sense associated with young-earth creationism.

The Big Bang itself is highly compatible with the original act of creation ex nihilo. That is precisely why it was initially resisted by many who believed that science, in order to be truly scientific, must somehow flatly contradict every Christian doctrine.

Arthur Eddington even said “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me.”

So there is that.

I am also quite convinced that the insistence on the multiverse theory is, at least in part, a way of neutralizing the notion of a beginning to the present order of nature.

I am not saying that this is all there is to it, but I do think there are significant theological—or, perhaps more accurately, anti-theological—motivations behind the appeal to the multiverse. After all, not only does the Big Bang suggest that the universe had a beginning, but the likelihood of the present state of affairs being exactly as it is appears unfathomably low.

The multiverse, then, “solves” two problems at once for materialists.

First, it cancels out the supposedly “repugnant” idea of a beginning .

Second, it addresses the problem of the universe’s constants and fine-tuning by proposing that there are an infinite number of universes (each with different constants) most of them unfit for life. We simply happen to live in one of the few with the “right” conditions, much like a dice being rolled billions, if not trillions, of times.

It is hard not to notice how “convenient” this theory is for many.

1 Like
146

This assumes, obviously, that there is such a thing as “a process that doesn’t include God”.

1 Like
147

False equivalence. “What we know” is not the same as “complete understanding”.

2 Likes
148

They already have jobs. Correcting journalists and amateur enthusiasts would take up all their time and accomplish nothing.

Except it doesn’t – it’s just a nice shiny version of “turtles all the way down”.

1 Like
149

Make that “a human defined process that doesn’t include God”. Such as meteorology, Germ Theory, etc.

I keep asking but get no answer for, “Why is it only a problem in biology if God isn’t included?”

3 Likes
150

It is not Biology as such. It is the nature of the process and what it is achieving.

It is the difference between life an inanimate processes.

Meteorology works as a watchmaker system. One set in motion there is no need for interference or adjustment. God is the designer and creator, but once setup it needs no input. God does not have to push around weather systems or make it rain. Meteorology is primarily about balance. Air moves from low pressure to high. Build up of moisture causes clouds. condensation causes rain, and so on. The system is in place. God dos not need to interfere. it is a closed system.

The creation and development of life is not like that. There is no intelligence or uncontolable factors in meteorology, but there is in life.

Without God, TOE is a lottery. The shape, form, even intelligence is unpredictable. TOE clams that life adapts to change and by the law of averages and necessity produces the right creatures. It is chaotic. It is immoral. (Morality only applies to living systems) It does not reflect God’s nature (as we know it) Humanity could be a giant reptile, or gelatinous blobs. As long as it survives and thrives. Lighting the blue touch paper and retiring immediately (as in meteorology) does not work if God is master of His Universe. Life takes over. The lunatics are running the asylum. Skynet has gained sentience.

If only you (et al) could understand the difference between a sealed, self contained and inanimate system (meteorology, thermodynamics, motion, energy, physics, chemistry…) and life, you would understand why TOE comes up short and does not reflect God.
TOE works fine within its limitations but there is something missing: Morality and that needs sentience. Man did not create life. Single cells are not sentient. You do the math.

It is not that God has to build every thing ex-nilo, but there are parameters, and directions that chance cannot control. Things that science cannot see or define. Why bipedal is the goal. Why horses cannot have wings. The complexities of ecosystems, symbiosis, plant and animal compatibility and interaction. ID! Complexity! All those things that Science seems to distrust or object to. That is God’s hand. It is only invisible because Scientists do not want to consider it. They cannot measure it. They cannot "believe " it.

Richard

151

Sure, what I meant is that it seeks to cancel out the “repugnant” idea of a beginning.

Then there is also the cosmological argument, which would remain firm and untouched even if the multiverse were proven. But the “aim” and “convenience” of this theory seem pretty clear to me.

152

If morality only applies to living systems, then the TOE (Theory of evolution) cannot be immoral.

1 Like
153

???

TOE is about living creatures. I was expecting a snarky comment about plants, but not a complete misunderstanding.

Richard

Edit

Technically TOE is amoral. There is no moraity either way.

154

And let me add this: besides trying to “get rid” of the idea of a beginning, the multiverse is essentially a reworked version of the old concept of an eternal universe, which was widely accepted before the discovery of the cosmic background radiation. The difference is that now the idea is framed in terms of multiple universes, either existing in succession or alongside one another.

There are different versions of the multiverse. In one version, universes emerge in an endless sequence of cycles, expanding, collapsing, or interacting over vast stretches of time. In that scenario, one universe’s Big Bang could come “after” another’s, so the beginning of our universe would not be an absolute beginning, but only one event within a much larger eternal process.

In another version, the universes do not necessarily come one after another, but exist alongside each other as separate “bubble universes” within a broader cosmic reality. Each universe could have different physical laws, constants, and conditions. On this view, our universe would simply be one among countless others, and we just happen to live in one of the rare ones where the conditions allow life to emerge.

Either way, the multiverse clearly seeks to deny the concept of creatio ex nihilo, which is especially troubling for materialists. But its other major function is to explain away, almost in a Darwinian fashion, the fine-tuning of the cosmic constants we observe in our universe.

After all, if there are trillions upon trillions of universes, most of them completely unfit for life, then the fact that our universe has the right constants no longer appears so surprising. No matter how unlikely a certain outcome may be, if there are endless possibilities, sooner or later even an extremely unlikely combination will definitely occur.

So yes, I can see why this theory is so attractive to materialists: they see it as something that finally does away with both the concept of a beginning and the problem of fine-tuning.

Lee Smolin even went so far as to propose a theory of “cosmological natural selection.”

He spelled it out clearly, but that idea is already implicit in the broader concept of the multiverse.

155

That is a confusing chart :rofl: Some of us classical theists probably see the whole lot as deists. Intelligent design certainly fits the bill and is akin to atheism/naturalism in so many ways as it concedes too many materialistic assumptions about reality. I think those of us who accept formal and final causality as a part of reality should get our own section. In fact, the majority of that whole chart should be shaded in with the heading “Christians duped by materialism”.

Vinnie

1 Like
156

But He does. We are told repeatedly that He controls the weather, sends storms, etc. With no scientific evidence that He does so. So why can He not likewise control evolution?

If you believe what the Bible says God controls all of those systems, including life. So you should be railing against meteorology because it doesn’t include God who commands the storms.

4 Likes
157

That is Judaism.

He does, but science cannot identify where and so the theory is flawed. It assumes no interference.

It is about how God controls not whether He does. He does not have to interfere with inanimate systems that work within fixed “rues” of His making. but when dealing with life, there is the independence factor that such fixed rules cannot cope with. God has relationships with life. There is no such relationship possible with the inanimate. If God chooses to "interfere with the inanimate it will be due to some element of life in one way or another.

No. God’s control s the parameters within which the storms work. Like i said, He may occasionally interfere but mostly it runs itself. If you happen to be standing on a vulcano when it blows then tough. Carry a long metal pole in a storm at your peril. Don’t expect God to come to your rescue.(unless He has a reason to of His own).

However, if you think God “hardens hearts” or sends kings to conquer then you are misreading Scripture.

Richard

Edit,

Look, Judaism does not believe in freedom of choice (or life) therefore the Scriptures will respect that. But, just as they were wrong about Genesis 1, they were also wrong about freedom. Inanimate objects have no freedom. Life does. The amount of freedom fixed life (plants, algae etc) have maybe limited but that is part of evolution. It works. But there are factors and changes in higher life that TOE cannot account for including sentience and the ability to use new features such as wings, or even legs. The so called “natural abilities” that no one teaches. We may teach language but we do not teach how to articulate or initially. Young birds are not taught to fly they are encouraged. That movement is very complex but they are “born with it” TOE cannot explain that away with trial and error.

158

Matthew 8:23, Mark 4:35 and Luke 8:22 describe Jesus controlling the weather and sending a storm.

James 5:17 describes Elijah praying successfully first for drought, then for rain.

Acts 14:17 says that God sends rain and fruitful seasons.

Are you sure about that? I’ve seen lots of wildlife documentaries in which young birds are being taught to fly, mainly by example.

3 Likes
159

You are still misunderstanding what scripture is. (see other conversation)

What the writer thinks or suggests does not mean that is what god did. Besides, I did talk abut exceptions and Jesus was an exception of great magnitude.

Example? Are you kidding? They show it can be done! Not how to do it.

Wen you teach children to walk, are you telling it to move each leg in succession (like a driving instructor teaches controls) or are you just supporting them while they work it out for themselves form natural ability.
(Rhetorical)

Richard

1 Like
160

When I was teaching my children to walk I did actually move each leg in succession until they got the hang of it. What children do work out on their own is crawling on all fours.

4 Likes
161

And even that is done mostly by trial and error.

Richard seems to think birds are born knowing how to fly. That they don’t need to learn. They don’t need to watch what their parents do when flying, or experiment with moving/flapping their wings while in the nest, or start with short drops followed by longer drops and gliding before moving onto powered flight, or practice, practice, practice.

All of which can be seen in the many, many wildlife documentaries available.[1][2]

Birds have to learn how to fly, and they do it by a combination of watching other birds - especially their parents, who frequently provide deliberate demonstrations - and trial/error. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not qualified to make claims about the topic.

  1. I recommend Springwatch, which includes a lot of cameras in birdboxes (Nestflix) and sequences of nestlings and fledgelings learning how to fly. ↩︎

  2. And occasionally eating each other. ↩︎

2 Likes
162

:smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

There is nothing to learn. it is autonomic. The layout of muscles(et al) does it. No more than you would learn to make your heart beat. Finesse will take a bit longer, but the basics will just happen.

Richard

163

Hmmm. Hundreds of videos of birds learning how to fly, vs one person saying they don’t need to.

Decisions, decisions…

164

Instinct probably plays a part. The layout of muscles, skeleton, and feathers just explain why they can fly after they “get the hang of it”.

Tell that to the baby birds that fall out of the nest and die because they can’t fly.

1 Like