I believe in “active guidance”. Correct. I have not heard that used as a term before.
I think that it does not logically follow that Adam has to be a literary example of representative allegory in order to be a literal created representative for us. I think that the proof is in the observed fact that each of us would rather know right from wrong than not. Knowing right from wrong differentiates us from animals. It is also part of growing up. Allegory is used to communicate a difficult concept. Eden does not communicate a concept. Eden proves a point.
Genesis 1 is the scientific account. Genesis 2 and 3 are journalism.
@deliberateresult @gbrooks9 I stand corrected. Active Guidance is a thing. Divine Action in Creation - in Theistic Evolution or...
Seriously George? Evolution is change in the gene pool? Nothing more?
So then, to paraphrase you ever so slightly, there is theistic change in the gene pool and atheistic change in the gene pool? And dare I ask: what do you mean by change? Change in frequency? Change in sequence? Novel genes?
Come on, George. Help me out here. If you let me know what, exactly, you are defending, maybe we can have a conversation.
In the meantime, please consult any of the popular high school biology textbooks (including the most popular one, “Biology,” which is co authored by TE Kenneth Miller). You will find it spelled out for you: the evolution of life occurs through purely natural processes.
George: the TE defends the position that the evidence shows that life is the result of purely natural processes and that no evidence exists for intelligent agency in the process. Moreover, every TE whom I have experienced personally or seen in debates and forums accuses those of us who see clear evidence for intelligent agency of practicing “pseudoscience” and relying on god-of-the-gaps arguments. The atheistic evolutionist defends the exact same position.
Therefore George, as far as I can tell, when it comes to the evolution of life, there is no difference between atheistic and theistic evolution. The difference between atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists concerns belief or non belief in God. On the evolution of life, there is no difference.
Would you like a perfect example? A couple of months ago, there was a three way debate held in Toronto on the question, “has science buried God?” Lawrence Krauss represented the atheistic position, Stephen C Meyer represented ID, and Dennis Lamoreaux represented TE. In this debate, it was readily apparent that there was absolutely no difference between Krauss and Lamoreaux except that one believed in God and one didn’t. In fact, both men said as much.
What you do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say.
Watch the debate if you care to: Krauss, Meyer, Lamoureux: What’s Behind it all? God, Science and the Universe. - YouTube
Great question, Mervin! And a very fair one as well.
At the risk of repeating myself, it comes down to this: Throughout the Scriptures, God makes it clear to us in many different ways that He has Created life. Deliberately. Intentionally. Actively. It is an essential truth. The TOE, on the other hand, makes it clear that the evolution of life is a process that can be wholly explained as the result of purely natural processes. No active intelligent intervention is required. The two claims cannot be logically reconciled. Forget science. Forget philosophy. This is pure logic. If one is correct, the other is necessarily incorrect. They are mutually exclusive. Thus, as a student, my embrace of the TOE had deep consequences, forcing me to consider a worldview opposite the one I had always held.
Now I realize that, in light of the position you have just outlined above, I need to unpack some things:
First, from Darwin to the present day, the TOE has been presented as a purposeless process. Asa Gray tried to convince Darwin that there was design and purpose in NS, but Darwin did not budge, insisting that there is no purpose (from “the Life and Letters of Charles Darwin”). Today, high school biology textbooks teach evolution as a purposeless process. This, from “Biology,” one of the most popular high school biology textbooks and co authored by TE Kenneth Miller: “evolution works without either plan or purpose…. Evolution is random and undirected.”
Second, any purely natural process must, by definition, be purposeless. Matter is wholly constrained by deterministic forces which preclude the possibility of intention and purpose. Therefore, any purpose must be actively interjected into the process at some point.
Therefore, I do hold that it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to say that the TOE is a purposeless process.
What makes evolution stand apart as the only worthy target? Let me tease the question a little bit. It may well not be the “only” worthy target, but it is a sufficient target and I would contend that it is the most directly applicable target. I did not see evolution as a “target.” I simply recognized that evolution provided a creation narrative that was mutually exclusive of the claims of the Bible. This being the case, I also recognized that I could not believe both. In my experience (and great frustration) Mervin, this is the key point that, no matter how I attempt to explain it, no matter how many examples other than myself I can present, this is a total disconnect for my TE friends. I can only assure you that it is real and it is a problem (one that is by no means unique to me); evolution has the power to turn believers into atheists. This is an empirical fact. And to me, there seems to be no logical escape from this inevitability.
On the other hand, ID has the opposite effect. ID has the power to turn atheists into believers (see “The Case for Christ,” by Lee Strobel, and “There is a God,” by Anthony Flew).
So I would like to repeat an earlier question: Do you believe that there is empirical evidence for God’s existence? If so, what?
p.s. I thank you again for the thoughtful exchange. I am enjoying our conversation.
Sorry I missed this question. My answer is a qualified no. I qualify that because ‘empirical’ usually means … something repeatable, quantifiable in a universally measurable sense … in other words: ‘scientific’. And in that sense, I cannot imagine how any thing in the physical world could by itself become the clinching proof that here finally, for all skeptics to see, is God. On the other hand I do think the fact that anything exists at all --worlds, space, ‘quantum foams’ … (much less in the amazing forms in which we find it … and that there are ‘minds’ to find and study anything at all in the first place) is itself empirical evidence to me for God. But I recognize also that this isn’t accepted by all as specific evidence for theism, much less any specifically Christian kind. For those more specific evidences, my evidential appeal is more to testimony and witness of transformed lives both present, past, and up to and including my own. That also is seen as subjective evidence --not admissible as scientifically empirical, and I understand why. I just don’t restrict my appraisal of evidence to the strictly empirical kind. ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good’, is an invitation to look at evidence … just of a more experiential kind rather than scientific or empirically unassailable.
It goes to show, you can’t believe everything you read.
We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on just what all evolution includes. But I do freely recognize that you did not just draw your conclusions out of a vacuum, but do indeed have a lot of cultural inertia that pushes the very secularist sentiments that you and many other creationists have been so tragically shackled to.
One caveat to add, though, (and I say this with an eye to Miller who I believe is a Christian who should have known better), I don’t know what context he may have put that quote in that you gave. But obviously as a (Catholic?) he believes in God and does not think the universe ultimately bereft of purpose. So without knowing his context, let me speculate on how part of what he wrote could be defensible. It is true that evolution does not have purpose, because evolution is not a living being like a person or God. Gravity doesn’t have any purpose at all. These things have no mind or free will … so it goes without saying that there will be no latent purpose to be found in them. Purpose is imposed from without, by people or by God. God is the source of all purpose in creation. So Miller and everybody else, is just flat out wrong if they say there is no purpose. But they are not necessarily wrong if they say “evolution itself does not contain some inherent purpose from within itself”. I.e. evolution is not trying to go somewhere --towards humans, for example. But God may be directing it that way. Just as we wouldn’t say that a car going down the highway knows anything, much less has purpose or intentions. But the driver behind the wheel does. That is where the purpose is found. I suspect that that is the common error that Miller might have been trying to correct.
You remarked earlier that TOE has no need of God as part of its explanatory process. I, and I suspect many TEs here agree with you in that. But neither is God needed [I suppose] in any standard texts teaching prenatal development; nor does gravitational theory have any need of God. That is, in the same way you claim for Evolution, gravity (or any of the four fundamental forces you mentioned) do not exhibit any purpose intrinsic to themselves, mindlessly and pitilessly applying without regard to intelligence or design.
So for you to be consistent, are you willing to concede that these too (astrophysics, embryology, and all subjects where no mention of God is needed) are also then godless pursuits that lead to atheism?
This is True.
This is False.
This is True.
This is True.
This is False.
This is only true if the person in question chooses to believe that the process was in fact purposeless.
This is only true if the person in question chooses to believe that ID points to God.
I think the issue is that you are trying to prove the existence of God through ID. There are some people to whom you will never be able to prove the existence of God, no matter what evidence you present.
Luke 16 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
What you are arguing is that ID is superior to TE because ID provides evidence for the existence of God. What I am arguing is that TE is superior to ID because TE does not rely on evidence, but instead it relies on faith. Evidence is fickle and as science marches on old evidence becomes outmoded and new evidence arises. Faith in non-testable truth is eternal, because non-testable means impossible to disprove. If you think that ID is useful as a tool for evangelism, well, fine. But just remember that trying to prove God’s existence to people is a losing proposition unless said people are seeking after God. What is needful is finding those people who are seeking after God and removing the stumbling blocks and apparent contradictions keeping them from God.
And over time the “we” keeps getting smaller and the “they” keeps getting bigger. And the Ken Ham’s/Brannon Howse’s of the world find they have a bigger audience:-(
1 Like
I would second this. In my case, as in Brad’s, YEC contributed more to a weakening process, and TOE (and Biologos) reinforced my faith. I think we sometimes use our stories as the only stories, forgetting that God is so all-encompassing that He can use many different (and even opposing) circumstances to touch the human heart.
1 Like
I need to jump in here for the sake of clarity for anyone that may be quietly reading this and getting an inaccurate picture of the Miller-Levine Biology text.
I am not sure if you are quoting a quote that someone on the internet pulled from the text, or if you actually own a copy of the text. I would also be curious to see these quotes in their full context.
I own this text and have been using it comprehensively for my son’s Biology course. I have read most of it at least once. I just pulled it out and re-read the references to evolution. I have not found the above quotes. Now, that doesn’t mean they aren’t in the text. It may just mean I couldn’t find them.
However, the overall flavor of this text is certainly not that evolutionary theory is based in random purposelessness and that there is no God. There are very specific and lengthy passages that distinguish what science is and what it is not. He specifically says that science cannot speak to meaning and purpose. It cannot address why we are on this planet, or speak to a Creator.
I also remember when I first purchased the book, viewing a video by Ken Miller that was very respectful of faith. If I can find the link, I will attach it.
This is a SCIENCE book so it speaks to the actual science. It’s definition of evolution is “the process by which organisms have changed over time.” It is not an idealogical text.
It explains where evolutionary theory originated, how developing science has confirmed its basic premises, and how knowledge from other disciplines (geology, genetics, etc) dovetails to form the Theory of Evolution. The “what” of evolution is uncontested… It is the “how” that scientists will continue to investigate. None of this precludes God as the Creator.
Ken Miller is not an ID (the current, public movement of ID) proponent. However, he is no atheist. Quite frankly, even if he was, his treatment of the science is professional.
I say this not so much for the poster of these quotes, but for anyone thinking of using this text. I recommend you get the text and read it - in its entirety - for yourself before passing judgment.
2 Likes
I think you hit this on the head.
Joe, over 80% of professional scientists don’t think God is involved in evolution. So it is not surprising when a scientist says Evolution is a process not guided by God or Gods.
This is what BioLogos is working to remedy. You are the perfect case study. You are suffering from the belief that Evolution cannot exist if God is involved. You are wrong about that - - full stop.
As for the definition of Evolution - - ANY CHANGE in a species gene pool is evolution. ANY.
@deliberateresult… you need to get out more.
Every once in a while, I will encounter someone on the BioLogos boards who insists that his belief in God INCLUDES the idea that God does NOTHING with evolution.
But I will take the bold risk in asserting that this is NOT the mainstream of BioLogos proponents. The overwhelming majority of BioLogos folks believe God is behind the seemingly random appearance of Evolution.
And then there is probably a small group of the larger group who think God’s interaction with Evolution is DETECTABLE.
You making a blanket statement that Theistic Evolution HAS to be non-guided - - well, that’s just wrong.
This is one reason imo why there is so much argumentation and debate on the TOE - such a generality cannot be taken as a scientific statement. Change and time are inexorably linked and one cannot have phenomena without some type of change. Organisms are as much a part of the planet (world) as wind and rain, so change is axiomatic, and as a scientific statement, vacuous.
TOE has caused endless problems because it is rendered "plastic’. as it can be shaped into any overall view a person may wish, while claiming it is science.
It is within this context that we may understand the impact of TOE - the young especially are not swayed simply by a scientific theory, but rather by an outlook that teaches “anything goes”, “any change is fine”, and “we do things because we have evolved in this way”, and anyhow, science does not lie, so get with it.
If I may say so, evangelicals may be missing the point when they confine their attention to questions of God doing this or that. All statements of faith in Christianity must, by necessity, commence with God is creator.
Perhaps a discussion on why the TOE has caused people to discuss and question God and His acts, may be productive.
I would assert that it is not Evolution that has led to people questioning God. I would say it is the fixation of some Christians on the mythology of a 6 day creation that has led people to this questioning!
The first scientists to challenge the 6 days of creation were not biologists … .they were GEOLOGISTS! And geologists and physicists are STILL the ones with the most compelling evidence for the age of the Earth.
Thanks for your clarifications. I have never read any of Miller’s texts, but just his book: “Finding Darwin’s God” many years ago. So I wasn’t sure what kind of quotes may be found in his texts, though it didn’t seem right that he would claim “purposelessness” in any ultimate sort of way. So if those quotes are in any of his books, it would be interesting to see their context. Thanks for looking. Too bad you don’t have it in electronic format. That’s one thing I really appreciate about Kindle or downloadable books … one can quickly search the entire text for phrases.
1 Like
Thanks Mervin. At the risk of splitting hairs, let me try a better way at getting where I want to go with this. My understanding of “empirical” is that the definition of the word leaves plenty of room for observation and experience, not testing exclusively. And please understand, I am not asking for “proof.” I am talking about evidence. We all have access to whatever evidence is out there, but we do not all interpret the evidence in the same way. Thus, when I ask you (leaving out the word “empirical,”) if you believe there is evidence for God’s existence, I am asking in the spirit of the apostle Paul, who assures us that “what can be known of God is manifest in men because God has shown it to him. For since the Creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,” and the psalmist who points out that, “The heavens declare the glory of God.”
Thus, for example, when my atheist friend and I agree that the fine tuning of the universe for life is both extensive and incredible, I see this as evidence for the existence of God, and he sees it as evidence for a multiverse.
Does this help clarify?