Thanks. I’m not sure I fully understand. If the singularity is outside the usual guidelines of time, I’d still be skeptical of saying we can’t understand it. I’d also be cautious of using the term “supernatural,” as it seems to imply God and even intelligence.
Sorry, I don’t plan on watching the video; but I’m happy to learn from a summary of yours.
Would you agree ?
Thanks.
In general, Deistic Evolution is an equally valid theological position alongside Theistic Evolution since the main difference is just the degree to which you think God intervened in the process. That being said, I don’t personally find Deistic Evolution to be a preferable view to Theistic Evolution for two reasons.
The first reason is that, from a Christian perspective, it is clear that God is always involved in his creation whether or not we can explain it with science. Nature is essentially the technology God uses to create new expressions of matter, life, and intelligence. In my opinion at least, he is doing it constantly. Even human technology can be an expression of God’s creative work.
The second one is more philosophical and is that Deistic Evolution doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer to some of the philosophical dilemmas that come out of a purely naturalistic understanding of evolution. For example, our brains evolved for survival not for truth. For example, with pareidolia, it doesn’t matter if you actually saw a tiger in the grass or not. What matters from the perspective of natural selection is that you got away, even if it was based on an erroneous assumption about the existence of the tiger. Since we can still survive even if we are wrong about the nature of reality, how can we know our brains are capable of truly understanding the universe? This is required for science to even be possible. Christian Theistic Evolution, in my opinion, resolves this by saying that God intended our brains to understand truth as the final cause, so we can trust that he guided the evolution of our brains to, in theory, understand truth, even though we may still get it wrong for various reasons. Deistic Evolution, however, does not satisfactorily answer this problem because we do not know the creator’s intentions. We don’t know if he even knows humans exist let alone cares about whether we can ascertain truth. As a result, I would say that Deistic Evolution is not any better than naturalistic evolutionism in its response to this philosophical problem, though if you already satisfied with the naturalistic answer, that would not be an issue for adopting Deistic Evolution.
It takes someone being very ignorant and uneducated to look at the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution and to dismiss it for intelligent design. The only people in America who are adults that understand science worse than OECist is YECist. But compared to the standard understanding by those who accept it, both of them are mountains and mountains behind.
Every single species on this planet from every kingdom that is studied out fairly well by specialist all showcase evolution being true. Botanist who study oaks to botanist who studies pines to botanist who study small ferns to the biologist who studies elephants, to the biologist that studies apes to those studying in entomology focused on bees, or beetles or herpetologist studying snakes or lizards, they all almost conclusively agree that genetics and the fossil record showcases evolution. Not one aspect of this evolutionary drive indicates “supernatural selection” over “natural selection” in the wild.
So how do you think biodiversity requires the supernatural? I am honestly getting sick of asking people in this group to back up something with science instead of all these pseudoscientific pursuers in here long term superglued ibto their chairs of 4th grade education.
Try looking up one of the commonly used 9th grade biology books. They dedicate a few chapters to this. For those that ignore 99% of the evidence to hyper fixate on one of the gaps in some specific spot, and cling to it as if it’s somehow overturning everything else then maybe start with a 6th grade science book.
Feel free to respond. I did not join Biologos to constantly debate adults who reject basic premises to science or push ridiculous claims acting as if ID have any sort of weight to it. I came to talk to others who know more about evolutionary biology or some other field and i came here to keep tabs with a spot that I send others who genuinely want to understand more about the intersection of science and faith. But adults who constantly reject it, for months or years, is just simply a waste of my time. That’s in this forum, other forums and in person in my day to day life. So like I’ve done with a few others, I’m just going to block you and ignore you for the the remainder of my time here.
Skovand.
Since reading my comments in their full, during the entire conversation is something you are also bad at I’ll say it one last time.
I believe in the supernatural. So you are lying or either really bad at reading my comments in their entirety if you think I don’t believe in the supernatural. Maybe you’ll remember this time. But I doubt it.
What I have said is that there is no evidence for supernatural claims regardless if it’s in the form of pseudoscience aka dummy science or in the form of people claiming someone laid their hands on a dead person in the name of Jesus, or through the power of a super pig from another dimension. You don’t like me merging the terms of healing in the name of Jesus or any other god with the same concept as burning candles or crystals. I don’t care.
Normally I give people months or years before blocking but people like you are popping up this place more than weeds in a trailer park and so I’m just going to keep saying myself the headache and start having a heavy block finger. So you can respond and defend yourself or whatever just know I can’t read it and won’t respond.
I would agree with Mi that it’s reasonable to try to ask any question we can. I honestly think that Colossians 2: 20 could apply to knowledge–God claps His hands when His children ask questions. Don’t you think so?
Thanks.
Except when repeatedly proven in the lab.
Even when proven in a lab :
One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man had
come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The Darwinian walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was done
talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making
contest.” To which the Darwinian happily agreed.
God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days
with Adam.”
The Darwinian said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a
handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!”
Ok no problem, the video is a lecture about infinity, the place where math, philosophy and theology converge. If you like these topics you may enjoy it. It is Christian in perspective.
Godel’s incompleteness theorem ( Im open to correction) proves that there are true statements in any system that transcend that system. They are transcendental truth claims. True but cannot be proven.
I think I may have misunderstood Mi’s argument, my apologies. we spoke past each other I think. He says there is no evidence for supernatural claims. I argue that the initial conditions of all things is a non- natural state, that collapsed into a natural state we see today. All things are evidence of the non-natural origin. He says no evidence, I say evidence is in all things.
Its is a non natural state, as nothing natural has occurred to gain knowledge of. All laws of science did not exist. your knowledge of the singularity can only be apophatic, You can describe it from what it is not.
Yes but all knowledge will only be potential, not fullness or else we become God in knowledge. We understand God in what He does, not what He is. We will learn more about God for eternity but will never know Him in fullness.
I need to work on clarifying this argument, thanks for asking questions.
This a great argument.
Thank you! Thank you for your humility. I am learning, too.
What do you think of this observation:
A singularity in physics is a point that has an infinite value. As an infinite quantity cannot occur in our understanding of Nature, singularities are not considered real by scientists. Instead, when theories predict a singularity, scientists take it to mean that the theory has been extended beyond its applicability. A new scientific theory is needed to describe the behavior of the physical universe in this area.
“Singularity” simply explained for laypersons with examples & an illustraiton (quantumphysicslady.org)
Can an actual infinite state occur in reality? Aristotle prohibited actual infinities on a logical inference. He said " if something attained infinite size, it would be bigger than the heavens". This quote you provided says the same thing. Physics may still operate under a aristotelian infinite prohibition. Meaning if the truth of the math points to a state outside the system (human understanding/ natural laws) Then the math is wrong and we need a new theory that we can fit into natural laws and human understanding.
Aristotle prohibited an actual infinite size. Why, because then only that substance would exist. A singularity has no parts, not measurable. It transcends natural laws. It is outside the system and will always be outside the system.
I believe the base logic goes like this
1 If an actual infinite state/size occurred things could not exist
2 Things exist
3 Therefore an actual infinite state cannot exist.
Cantor’s mathematical set theory changed this prohibition in mathematics.
Cantor said
The fear of infinity is a form of myopia that destroys the possibility of seeing the actual infinite, even though it in its highest form has created and sustains us, and in its secondary transfinite forms occurs all around us and even inhabits our minds.
I believe Cantor was correct. Monotheism, is founded upon God’s essential, one essence which is an actual infinitive. The greeks also proposed this. Ironically Aristotle’s own prime mover argument necessities the One who generates motion in the beginning of all motion. The Prime mover or unmoved mover, is not part of the casual chain of motion. The prime mover is outside of the system of motion by necessity. He is beyond motion but can cause all motion.
Because they are irrational, they believe they cannot be real. That is why I was arguing with Mi on this point.
But math has proven Irrational things can be real. A circle is one of those things. If I said a circle is not real because is irrational you would call me foolish. But a circle is a infinitely sided polygon and according to the above quote therefore it is not real. I see circles all around me and find them very real and helpful yet they are irrational.
Thanks. Hm, I didn’t get that from the passage. If a mathematical theory comes up with an infinity, then another approach may incorporate something we did not comprehend at first. I don’t see that it would mean an intelligent deity. I often get medical results in which a protein, for example, is undetectable; and the result is infinity. That’s only because my question was not the right one. It doesn’t mean we find that the kidney protein, for example, was affected by infinity.
Aristotle was brilliant, but his inferential logic was quite erroneous in many ways, so I’m afraid I look at much of his reasoning with skepticism. I would have to read more.
Have a good night.
Thanks.
Randy
You are correct, I am not saying anytime an infinity comes up it is true. But when dealing with an Actual infinity (singularity) causing all that is observed in the universe, and that observation concurs with the best of our philosophers, mathematicians and theologians we need to think about it seriously.
So to be clear I disagree with Aristotle regarding Actual infinite sizes(the singularity) and agree with Cantor. But I would agree with Aristotle causal argument ( I am not a expert )
cheers
You cannot demonstrate complex changes in te lab.
You can’t demonstrate complex changes anywhaee.
You cannot show complex progressions anywhere
All you can show is a proposed lineage, without the means to join the dots
The evolutionary process of change is still vague and undefined (no one here has attempted to do so)
Genetic mutation does not cut it. It just assumes that the mutation will automatically be viable, in the the right place, at the right time, miraculously complete and fully functional.
(@SkovandOfMitaze 9th grade is not interactive science but rote learning)
Richard
I did here:
What are adaptations of antibiotic resistance in bacteria in lab experiments, then?
Given that it works pretty well for bacteria, I think that it can achieve a lot.
I think that that is the driving “take home” point of Deistic Evolution. It is that there are three considerations, almost unrelated: 1) How is (was) it possible that this universe and all that is in it come into being, without an intelligent designer (examples to come), 2) If an intelligent designer was necessary, and set it into motion, did that entity care about what we now call Christian ideals to live a Christian life?..because 3) God IS irrelevant as to how we live our lives. I am not a Deistic Evolutionist, but I shall discuss what I THINK their beliefs rely on.
And it is this: Regarding point 1, there are so many things we are discovering, without which life would not be, that defy possible randomness. E.g. the 4 complex systems of protein electron transport chains, I - IV, each of 100-150 aa’s that strip electrons and hydrogen protons inside the mitochondrial membrane, shuttling them laterally in a series of handoffs to the final ATP Synthase molecule called complex V. Each of these spin like a top in an almost impossible way, moving electrons laterally and a hydrogen proton reentering the mitochondrium. The possibility of this evolving without help is difficult to imagine. The space of time in the past 13.8B years is not large enough for random mutations to have just happened to succeed in doing this.
Another is the actual creation of our universe. How can every single molecule of H2 have been created 13.8 Bya, with no other source? And then He comes along, with Li, Be and B from fusion. Then a billion years later, dying supernova stars make C, N, and O all the way to Fe (26 Ps and 30 Ns)? Next the heavy metals must evolve, and amazingly each one with exactly one more P in it, to fill the periodic table. Life is impossible without the heavy metals, our bodies requiring ~40 for us to even exist. A 70kg man has 7,000 mgm of the 10 top heavies, and there are now 59 elements in our bodies, many without known biologic roles (Rubidium leads the way with .68 gr followed by vanadium at .11 gn).
I think they rely on the lack of sufficient time for beneficial mutations to evolve into the complexity of our systems without intervention. This is different from the Watchmaker analogy of Dawkins, albeit related to it.
And also, the “chicken-egg” of how a molecule (DNA), containing molecules necessary for coding and creating the molecules necessary for them to be there in the first place?
So, in conclusion, DE folks see this as having been set in motion by a God such that all of this could then evolve on its on. This has little or nothing to do with Christianity as we understand it today, I think.
Are you having a laugh?
2 million years and the changes are barely visible!
miniscule. It hasn’t change the basic structure at all, just a resistance.
The bacteria ate still bacteria. Who are you trying to kidd?
The sort of changes needed are macroscopic not microscopic. Building organs and blood systems, lymphatic, and urinary, even sexual. They don’t just appear! Or at least they seem to.
Irreducible Complexity is not about a simgel change it is about integrated systems. For a bird to fly it needs more than wings, it needs muscles, nerve control, metabolism and air exchange, to mention a few. It’s all very well growing feathers but without the sternum, added muscles and precise control they just flap around like an Ostrich.
Natural Selection is fine for adaption but it fails miserably at creating new parts. There is no logical reason for a fish to just up and leave the water, or jump off a tree and fly. Nature cannot “see” an opportunity. Nature does not know what land or sea or air is. Nature has no brain or self awareness. All these “concepts” are the product of “human” intelligence. Nature hasn’t a clue. it hasn’t a brain.
Richard
God created for a relationship so the universe was designed to give rise to self-organizing processes which are the basis of life. So some of creation was certainly about design. But some of it was not. Some of it was about participation in the lives of the living organisms, with nudges perhaps, but certainly with corrections when needed.
So no. An intelligent designer is not necessary for the development of life. Once life was created, it is the nature of living organisms to make their own choices and to learn things for themselves. So evolution works just fine without an intelligent designer. Though this hardly means that by itself we would see the same results. It is like saying students will learn without a teacher in the classroom – it does not mean they will learn the same things or just as well.
This isn’t the case in the Christian view of things.
Certainly not, and I think that is the point that the distinction of Deistic Evolution makes with our traditional Christian values, understanding and beliefs. DE essentially says that…“we were given much, but we are now on our own”.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.