Here you go Patrick: Cosmic Ray’s Starlight Café
1 Like
I don’t see much of a difference between “I propose…” and the phrase "What if … " used by the other Collins. But I am not too surprised when you fix your sites on the jot and tittle.
I did notice that he “goes on [about] … the manipulation of matter (gametes) by God. That is, he is talking about the “tinkering” that is so denigrated by so many other TE/EC leaders.”
And for the same reason, I winced at this clumsy portrayal of God’s execution. I think it is not the most commendable approach.
If you are going to compel me to pick a favorite, the depiction by the OTHER Collins (Francis), of a front-loaded creation (even if he didn’t use that specific term) is far superior to this “tinkering”. Does Robin’s perspective of God include a tentative deity who is not quite sure what will produce the best results? Or, rather, is it your insistence to portray Robin’s discussion in such a matter?
You write: “Nothing that clear or precise about God’s relation to the evolutionary process has been published on this site by Francis Collins, Giberson, Falk, Haarsma, Venema, Applegate, Louis, Alexander, Isaac, Ussery, etc. Not in 6 years!”
Clear? Maybe. Precise? Doubtful.
Eddie,
If you are the model for concise theological communication, I’m still waiting for a convincing theological treatment for why the concept of “front-loading” creation isn’t ENTAILED as soon as you specify:
1) God of Omnipotent Creation, and
2) God of Foreknowledge.
You keep dancing around the linguistic truth that “foreknowledge” does not necessarily mean “direction”. Right. No argument there.
But if your concept of God ALSO includes MAKING ALL OF CREATION - - there is no way around front-loading.
George
@Eddie, I was wondering when you were going to start laying down rules about how to use the term “Front-Loaded”.
You say that this is “how the term is used … in discussions. If you aren’t using the term in that way, you won’t understand what everyone else is saying.”
I anticipated this objection from you weeks ago … when I started referring to a “front-loaded universe” WITH God “answering prayers in real time”.
You see, the problem with your strict interpretation of the term front-loaded, is that it fails to recognize two other divine activities:
Let’s list them:
-
The first category is, as you say, “set up the dominoes and give the first one a push.”
-
But you say this eliminates any need for miracles. Who says that? Are you saying that by using the term front-loaded I prohibit God from using the miraculous as PART of his precise execution of the unfolding of the Cosmos? When God raised Jesus … and lifted him into the heavens in a cloud … this can’t be in a front-loaded Universe?
This seems completely capricious … God can make the natural AND the super-natural part of the front-loaded sequencing. -
And lastly, there is the equally miraculous communication with humanity, via prayers or visions. I suppose we could surmise that some visions are the result of psychological/neurological factors … but certainly you wouldn’t want to INSIST that God could not communicate miraculously as well?
So, Eddie, you have a choice to make:
A) You either recognize the “Front-Loading” doesn’t necessarily mean that God can’t perform his miracles - - at precisely the right time as he planned at the very beginning of creation. (I completely agree that things like “tinkering” seems to be out … if by tinkering you mean, God suddenly realizes that he needs to make some adjustments.)
B) If you are completely inflexible about making such allowances, then for the sake of clarity, I will need from you an acceptable term or phrase that you think DOES make such allowances. And I will use that term.
I certainly have no intention of changing my position on the 3 kinds of divine activity; but if you aren’t interested in coming up with an alternative, then the discussions will become a game where I propose a term, and you offer me a few thousand words for why my proposal is somehow not up to snuff.
So… come up with a phrase you like … or I will simply have to continue using front-loaded with my “real-time” caveats in my discussions.
George
I think Francis Collins is being awfully clear. And perhaps he avoids the term “Front-Loaded” specifically to avoid the confusions raised by you in your prior post.
This is how I see Front-Loading working:
-
God, as CREATOR, is also Omnisicient;
-
Using his knowledge of future events, God front-loads all creation; But…
-
Without negating God’s willingness and ability to execute various miraculous events when and where exactly they would be necessary, including answering prayers in real time… with no way of specifying whether such miraculous activity would have -
3a) virtually little to do with evolution, or
3b) a substantial role in evolution, especially the evolution of humanity.
If I were a betting man, I would propose that Francis Collins is most likely on the side of 3a.
I place myself squarely in the middle of 3a) and 3b) - - where Ithink it is quite likely that key events in evolution may well have been miraculously evoked, rather than as part of the natural consequences of front-loading.
George
Eddie,
There is a third possibility. That things move forward due to natural properties of the universe, unguided and stochastically.
Francis Collins is a high level US Government bureaucrat in the Obama Administration. His personal religious beliefs are irrelevant as long as he remains as a US Government Official.
George,
I will try one more time to explain how my solution of this problem differs from both traditional Darwinian thinking and ID. TE and ID focus entirely on genetics, that is how genetic change caused evolution. I focus on how both ecological changes and genetic changes produce evolution.
The issue is not front loading or not. The issue is how successive ecological changed led to the creation of humans and all the plants and animals we see in the world today.
The extinction of the dinosaurs was one step in this process, but it was an important step because it was obviously ecologically based. not genetically based. They died out not because they changed or because mammals took their place, but because the ecology changed.
Another basic change in the ecology which seems to be overlooked is the separation of earth from one huge continent into the seven we have now. This allows for much more diversity of climates and ecological niches.
What I am saying is that God uses multiple processes, the changes in the physical surface of the earth and the climate of the earth, which create billions of diverse ecological niches to guide another complex process, evolution. While that might be hard for humans to understand, certainly God is Able.
Why does it matter how he personally thinks evolution happened? He knows it happened and he now leads the effort on what research should be done to help Americans’ health using the knowledge of evolution to fight diseases.
Roger, I think your explanation is sound and excellent. What you and I seem to have differed on is whether there is a problem in the minds of Evolutionary scientists or not. When we are talking about ecology, and continents and environment, there is hardly anyone who wonders whether or not there is a “God of the Gaps” issue here. Most everyone sees sunshine, and raindrops and even cosmic radiation as part of the natural world - - with no need for God to intervene miraculously. But, as you point out, HE COULD!
For the most part, though, it’s not a controversy. So when I read post after post from you, complaining about Evolution scientists IGNORING the ecological side . . . it rubs me the wrong way. They aren’t ignoring it. They simply don’t find it as interesting as the “thing” they are writing about (which is usually genetics). I have found they are perfectly able to discuss environmental factors when it jazzes up their story, scenario or article.
The most fun I’ve had discussing ecological factors was when I was discussing the demise of the Terror Birds … who ruled as the top predators of South America - - right up until South America joined North America… And then they were RUINED! (Ecology rules!) Clearly an ecological situation.
And I remember some very interesting articles about the evolution of whales … where an early form of whales were living in ocean shallows in around North Africa. But when the northern edge of Africa began to rise up, the shallows were lost, driving the proto-whale life form into the deeper oceans.
The issue of Front-Loading is a “special interest” between Eddie and me. Some BioLogos writers are adamant that God never had to intervene (in the style of the Intelligent Design folks) in order to arrive at humans. Others, like myself, have no problem with the idea that God may have had to miraculously intervene, here or there, to bridge the gap that he knew would either take too long … or to bridge a gap that nature was never going to bridge on its own ! But I don’t see any problem with folks (like me) using the term FRONT-LOADED to cover all the NATURALLY LAWFUL parts of God’s plan(s) - - PLUS the miraculous actions that God takes (in real time) JUST AS HE PLANNED from the creation of the Cosmos.
Have a great day!
George
George, what you are saying is they are not ignoring ecology, they just don’t find it interesting or important as genetics.
Why does saying someone is ignoring something that is important rub you the wrong way when actually (according to you) they are only being closed-minded and scientifically irresponsible?
Please do not claim that God guides evolution through genes, when God does not.