My outlook has always been that we should not mix orthodox theology with ToE - and there are many examples where this has occurred, such as mythologising Adam and Eve etc.
So no, I do not think that ToE is God ordained, far from it. I think the (pseudo)theological meanderings I have seen on this site are boorish and amateurish, not because people are not Christians (far from it), but because they place too much credence on ToE - I trust you and others at least understand the distinction I am making…
I have gone to some lengths to accept that biologist perform good work and I do not seek to critique their data or observations. Perhaps the above pro-ToE quote says it all - my responses have sort to discuss the basis of ToE as presented by evolutionary biologists (which is not as clearly stated as I would have hoped). So whatever type of random process(es) is/are envisaged, the understanding is opaque.
That is still ok as far as a scientific theory goes - it is not a basis for inserting some type of theological argument(s).
So you didn’t find my answers clear enough? It seemed to me that you wanted (your words) “a clear stochastic methodology that would give mathematical credence to randomness in ToE,” and you claimed that you had not heard a “scientifically sound response.” Perhaps the problem is that you don’t understand the science?
You spoke, with some justification, about Christians who speak of the randomness of Evolution.
And so I reminded all of us that many BioLogos supporters don’t believe Evolution is random (in the ultimate sense).
I wasn’t trying to get you to agree to that position; I know you do not agree with it. But certainly you must find relief from all those “Random Evolution” postings by taking refuge here on these pages.
The impossible odds against life’s having evolved the way it did would be the odds that someone before the big bang could have predicted molecule for molecule every plant and animal alive today. Everyone would agree that only God could have done that.
The ToE was developed from a very careful study of the fossil record, which shows conclusively that life did indeed evolve over time. It is a certainty that life evolved, so that any calculations that show evolution is impossible are clearly wrong.
you have not provided a clear stochastic methodology and insinuations will not aid you. The quote from a pro-evolutionist indicates none may be available - if you have one provide it instead of seeking some type of confrontation.
You have been around this paddock many times and I do not see any good reason to repeat. Raandom with theology can mean to some any outcome is possible, and fossils can mean Adam and Eve did not exist, and throwing God into this becomes, in the end, meaningless.
I explained random mutation after asking if that’s what you were talking about. I told you that there is no “true randomness” that is a part of evolutionary theory. Your question is incomprehensible, but it seems to presuppose that there is some fundamental “randomness” embedded in evolutionary theory. You speak of “stochastic methodology” without specifying – or even vaguely hinting at – a question. Would you like to ask a question? What is it about randomness in evolution that you find so “opaque”?
I hope you are studying evolution like mad in preparation for your meeting. Get familiar with the evolutionary history of whales. We have resources here on this site. And point out that since life evolved in the water, what would be so unusual about returning to it? And why would God make it look like whales evolved–wouldn’t that be deceptive if they were created out of thin air?
exactly! I’ve been saying the sane thing. Why would God put hind legs in whales if they didn’t evolve. Since the hind legs help with reproduction (i think) why not put sonething else there to help with it instead of legs so it doesnt look like it evolved.
For the sake of civility, I paste your comment and remind you there is little that cannot be comprehended:
As I hope you have seen explained by others, repeatedly, at BL, “random mutation” means “mutations that arise independent of the organism’s ‘need’ for them.” There are very slight hints that this separation (between ‘need’ and occurrence) is somewhat blurry – IMO the main blur is the fact that the mutations rate seems at times to be ‘deliberately’ increased as though that is an adapted response aimed at increasing genetic diversity in hopes of ‘getting’ a mutation that will solve a problem. I think that’s a far cry from ‘directed mutation’ but it is definitely an erosion of the experimentally-supported separation I mentioned above.
Now are you part of the pack that says “evolution is not random?” Or are you advocating something esoteric so that your continue to question my capability to comprehend your remarks?
I did not bring up random mutations, but asked for two treatments that appear to be relevant to various comments, such as coin tossing and evolution, or such like. You have failed to provide a concise answer to my points, and now are intent on obsessing on mutations.
No, sorry, that’s not the conversation at all. This is: you wrote requesting “a clear stochastic methodology that would give mathematical credence to randomness in ToE.” I am assuming that you refer to mutations, since that is the most prominent part of evolutionary theory that is called “random.” The other is genetic drift. But in fact I asked you specifically to tell me what it is that you don’t understand. And of course it was you, not me, who wrote that you do not understand.
Now, I’m ignoring your repeated baiting (‘confrontation,’ ‘obsessing,’ etc.) and will simply ask you again: what exactly do you have in mind when you talk about “randomness in ToE” that you believe requires “a clear stochastic methodology?”
@GJDS
I’m with Stephen on this. Don’t be grouchy and then project lack of civility on everyone else. No one has been rude to you here, they have engaged your oft-repeated objections. If having your objections engaged can only be a frustrating negative experience for you, then maybe you shouldn’t bring them up.
Perhaps the conversation has gotten “of the rails” - it seemed as if you were insistent on indicating I could not understand your point.
My interest in this thread started with the notion of mathematical probabilities and evolution - this struck me as a topic for mathematics - I also note a previous exchange that sought to show ToE was “similar” (whatever that means), to theories of physics and chemistry.
So if these discussions are meaningful, I for one would like to see some treatments, such as for example, stochastic methodology. You should not take this as a grouchy response, but instead one of interest.
I hope you can understand, and @Christy (and I do hope for useful exchanges) , why I seemed somewhat taken aback by your comments on mutations. If otoh, you wish to expand the discussion, and perhaps agree with the other posts, that ToE is not random, than I assume the other side of that is teleology and perhaps comments can be directed at that.
It seems to me that comments often go from one point to another in a (pun intended) randomised manner.
You believe that God has ordained chemistry, do you not? Do you not believe that God has ordained physics? If so, then why could a Christian not believe that God has also ordained biology?
If you would state that God has not ordained chemistry and physics, maybe we are having a terminology problem. Perhaps you think it best to talk about God having ordained the world and its laws, but not scientific endeavors like the study of chemistry, physics and biology, even though they seek to study that universe and its laws. That’s a very peculiar use of terminology that is bound to sow confusion among most audiences, but if that’s how you prefer to talk, then I personally am willing to go along.
In which case I would state that God has created all life in the universe and upholds its existence and its changes by His mighty, providential hand at all times and places. Thus when I study biology, my belief as a Christian is that I am studying what God has created and ordained in the realm of life. So when I say that God has ordained what I observe when I study biology, that is no different than saying that God has ordained the water cycle, plate tectonics, and ionic bonds, which are also processes that I observe.
Since what I observe when I study biology is evolution, I just use the short-hand: “God has ordained evolution.” Even if it’s not as precise and careful as the preceding paragraph, it’s a lot pithier. And the vast majority of people are not as concerned as you are with distinguishing between God’s ordination of a process (on the one hand) and the study of a process that God has ordained (on the other), so most folks do not have trouble with the short-hand phrase.
Does that help?
I suspect that most Christian biologists would agree with what I stated, but I would invite folks like @Swamidass, @benkirk, @Sy_Garte, @DennisVenema to correct, refine, qualify, etc. as they deem suitable.
I am beginning to understand how some US Christians use terms such as ordained, but I think it will take me some time to get used to it.
I understand phrases such as “a priest is ordained”, or “God has ordained that we are saved in Christ”, to signify something out of the ordinary, something particularly spiritual and often holy.
On chemistry, physics and biology, these are disciplines created by us - the theologically significant component is that God has created it all to testify to His Glory. Now, if this is what you mean by “ordained evolution”, than I must confess I find it clumsy and confusing, BUT I can now at least understand what you mean.
So perhaps we can arrive at a difference in terminology.
On the general question regarding understanding nature, I subscribe to the intelligibility of the creation and prefer to see this as God’s addition of the spirit of man to the human race.
