A dude in the desert who can’t swim.
Ah, but Christi, the problem is that Darwinian evolution is not rendered purposeless by ideology. It is purposeless by definition. The grist for the mill of Darwinian evolution is supplied by random mutations. The atheist is therefore correct, not merely on ideological grounds, but on ontological grounds.
To say that a there is a teleological element to Darwinian evolution is to arbitrarily add an element that it simply does not need. It is like saying, “here is how you boil water: heat the water to 212 and add a dwarf.” You and others who wish to believe that evolution is true while maintaining faith in God may think it is acceptable to add teleology to the process, but it is illogical and any young person who is taught that Darwinian evolution is true will readily discern that the dwarf is completely unnecessary to the process. It is what happened with me. And it has happened with so many others.
The late Wil Provine taught a course in evolution to incoming freshmen for years. He was on record as stating that one of his goals in that course was to turn Christians into atheists. He boasted a success rate of over 50%.
Ideas have consequences.
So what? Who here is claiming the theory of evolution is sufficient to answer all our questions and provide all the knowledge we need to live life righteously? It’s a scientific model that needs to be integrated into a larger wordview. That larger worldview can be atheistic or Christian or anything else. I’m having a hard time understanding why this is a hangup. Understanding and acknowledging the completely mechanistic nature of the water cycle does not keep me from thanking God for good weather or praying for the end to droughts and famines that effect people I care about.
1 Like
Richard: A couple of things here.
- Although you introduce a new element into the conversation by claiming that the earth was not Created by any miraculous process, it is indeed a related topic. I disagree with you. Consider two passages from Isaiah 45; v 12, “I made the earth and Created man on it,” and v 18, “For thus says the Lord, Who Created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who did not Create it in vain, Who Created it to be inhabited” Now consider all of the unique, special, and necessary conditions and factors that make earth completely unique and uniquely habitable ( the list of requirements for habitability continues to grow), and we see very good evidence from a Christian perspective - scientific evidence - to suggest that the earth is indeed a special Creation. By the way, this is the same type of evidence (fine tuning) that we all use to cite the need for a Creator of a life friendly universe.
I have another issue to raise concerning your response, which is more directly related to the topic, but I have to go now. I will return this afternoon to address that
That’s quite some statement you are making about the definition of randomness. I would like to refer you to a useful BioLogos article published this year. It’s written by a mathematician so he has hands-on experience with what the definition of randomness does and does not say in scientific paradigms. Here’s his introductory paragraph:
“Is randomness real? Discussions of this topic are often confusing because the word “randomness” does not enjoy a univocal definition—it denotes a number of concepts bearing a family resemblance. For mathematicians, randomness refers to uncertainty, for statisticians to a property of a selection process, for computer scientists to an absence of pattern in bit strings (I’m oversimplifying in saying that), for quantum physicists to absence of cause, and for biologists to the independence of variations in offspring from their environment. Popular usages also include notions such as lack of purpose or meaning, absence of control, and gratuitous occurrence. However, even though the scientific definitions vary, there is nothing in them that suggests that randomness necessarily lacks purpose, meaning, or control or that it is gratuitous. Here’s a typical confusion—someone points to a phenomenon in quantum mechanics or evolutionary biology and says that it exhibits randomness in the scientific sense. The speaker then shifts to a popular definition and asserts that the phenomenon is without purpose or meaning. Neither conclusion is warranted. So in talking about God and randomness, I’m going to stick to the scientific definitions.”
4 Likes
Interesting. Couple things about this. First of all, evolution as we are discussing it is a natural phenomenon. So really saying that evolution has a teleological element is like saying “sometimes boiling water contains dwarves.” The difference between dwarves and God in this metaphor is that it is easy to test for the presence of dwarves. It is impossible to test for the influence of God on evolution.
Wil Povine and his ilk will not be thwarted by young earth creationism. They will be thwarted by providing reasonable interpretations of Genesis to students who want to believe in God. Not all students want to believe in God, and not all people will allow themselves to be saved, but it is vitally important that we are honest with people who do want to be saved.
1 Like
[my own emphasis added]
Don’t think of it as “adding teleology to a process” so much as “incorporating a discovered process into our teleology”. The former way makes it sound like evolution is the real foundation of Christianity for liberal Christians who really just believe in evolutionary science and then add whatever religious gloss they like so long as it accommodates to that. While some would love to caricature all E.C.s in just this way; nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to really understand how so many thinking Christians approach this issue, then here it is: I am a Christian first and last. Christ is my foundation --its very cornerstone in fact. Anything that science or any other “-ism” out there adds to this is just building on that foundation. Some of it may be good construction. Other bits shoddy. God’s judgment will reveal all for what it is. I tend to think that attending to, and learning from the testimonies of creation itself (something science has mostly proven to be pretty good at) is going to make for better living and witness (more lasting, solid, and valuable edifice) than its opposite: conflating falsehoods in with our witness just to prop up one recent, sectarian, interpretive tradition (no matter how cherished) – especially around origins.
Regarding the whole adjective of “Darwinian” --you may be right that that comes with non-scientific, anti-teleological baggage. But if so --I happily throw it under the bus where it would then belong along with all the other nonscientific nonsense that typically accompanies those who wish to import atheism into their science. They can have “Darwinian” (so far as I’m concerned --others here may bristle and try to recover that term; I have no interest). But they cannot exclusively bundle “science” or “evolution” along with any restrictively ateleological descriptor no matter how much they protest to the contrary.
2 Likes
I would question this as a definition of random in evolutionary biology - the ND theory proposes a totally random notion in which nothing in mutations can be reproduced because it is totally random (non predictable, non reproducible as scientific models). To escape the obvious consequences of this portion of the theory, they postulate an almost magical selection process, which is supposed to find the fittest, and it is here that many variations on this theme (
) are brought into their outlook (drift, ecological factors, population rates of some sort, just to mention a few).
If TE/EC are serious about their view that evolution is how God went about creating, they must seriously address the problems with random evolution. Otherwise it is another aspect of an extremely contentious outlook that constantly defends itself by hiding behind other scientific outlooks outside of biology.
Nick: given that the atheist evolutionist would disagree with you, the only difference between the two of you is that you believe in God and (s)he does not. You both embrace the same naturalistic theory. Your only disagreement is on the existence of God. Unless I am missing something (and if I am, please clarify for me exactly what it is that makes evolution not a purely natural process), your disagreement has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with whether God exists
Christie: it is not a “hang up,” it is a problem, and a big one. This is my point. And it is a problem specifically because the origin and evolution of life is a critical piece to any worldview. Growing up in a Christian house in a Christian environment, a cornerstone piece to my worldview was that I was Created by God. When I studied and embraced evolution in school, I realized - as have so many others - that if physical processes were capable of bringing about life, then God was not necessary to the process. This, in turn, forced me to reexamine my worldview. A painful thing, to be sure, but if I was to revere truth above my worldview, then given naturalistic evolution, I needed to revise my worldview.
Again Christie, it is an essential truth about God, consistent throughout Scriptures, that He Created all life. It is true about the TOE that the unfolding of life has not required any deliberate or intentional intervention. i appreciate that you believe that God is behind it, but the theory itself is unchanged whether we believe in God or not.
Actually I can George, and I do. Have you heard this one before: “Can God make a square circle?” Or how about this one: “Can God Create a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it?” Both of these are “clever” questions that atheists use to “prove” that God is not omnipotent. The problem, of course, does not lie in the answer to either question. Rather, the problem is in the question itself; both questions are logically incoherent in that they violate one or more of the laws of logic. Similarly, the question, “Can a purposeless process produce an intended result?,” suffers from the same incoherence. The TOE is a purposeless process (I can provide several authoritative references if you wish). God’s Creation of life was deliberate, intentional, and planned.
I saw the logical incoherence in my studies and many many others have also seen it, and they will continue to see it.
I agree. I still don’t see how it poses a problem.
I think you may be projecting your own experience as universal when it clearly isn’t. I grew up in a Christian home too, was taught young earth stuff in homeschool curriculum, went to a conservative Evangelical college where I learned my deeply committed Evangelical science professors didn’t have a problem incorporating acceptance of the evolutionary model into their Christian worldview. So I decided to take their word for it as experts in relevant fields. No faith crisis was required. The fact that I was created by God or that Jesus died and rose again was never called into question by anything I learned in Biology class.
Joe, again, you are criticizing the ATHEISTIC version of Evolution…
Your comments are entirely irrelevant to the BioLogos position - - BioLogos teaches Evolution as part of God’s plan. While I suppose there are some BioLogos supporters who think God was willing to throw dice on various points of evolution - - there are certainly many BioLogos supporters, like me, who allow for God to have perfect control and intentionality over the entire process of evolution.
1 Like
For a TE/EC evolution cannot be, “random”, though there are random processes in it. It happens in the context of an intelligently designed universe with physical laws acting on matter on Earth - all of which are perfectly designed for life. Nothing is by accident, they (universe, laws, matter, earth) were intently created by God. Given that context, even a purely naturalistic evolution can never be, “random”.
I do not dispute the concept of laws and find the evolutionist’s notion of random unacceptable. However, I am pointing out the basic definition of evolution as proposed by the majority of biologists, and this is obviously non-predictable/accidental processes as the basis of their theory.
If TE/EC and BioLogos propose another version of evolutionary biology, and they claim scientific credibility purely within the biological sciences, they need to articulate their other version, at least sufficient for serious scientific discussion. It is not enough as some do, to say BioLogos has a different view then atheists, and then defend the very same version atheists insist is evolution.
As I have stated before, saying this or that amounts to using semantics as a basis for a scientific debate. This is unacceptable - if you have a theory, it can only be stated in scientific terms that are not subject to semantic manipulation. The alternative is to admit the theory is primitive and unsuitable for discussions outside of biology.
So how many versions of this fantastical evolution do you have George? Perhaps you can provide a scientific definition for the scientific community!
Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Luke 16:31 “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.’”
Proverbs 15:1 A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
@GJDS @deliberateresult Joe, the thing to remember is that some will seek and they will find. Others will refuse to be convinced. Can evolution be explained without God’s direction? Probably. Can it be proven that God does not direct evolution (sometimes)? No, it cannot be proven that God does not direct evolution. It cannot be tested. You cannot devise a test for the influence of God on evolution. You can devise evidence to show that evolution is undirected and based on drift etc, but it is logically impossible to prove that the process is not directed by or interfered with by an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
Does this leave the door open for people to disbelieve in God? Sure. But evolution has never been a prerequisite for disbelieving in God. People have had the option of disbelieving in God for a long, long time, and that is a big part of what free will is all about. If the existence of God were provable, then free will becomes moot.
Also, you cannot save everybody, because not everybody wants to be saved. Some people think that if they just had the perfect argument and the perfect evidence that they could bring everyone to Christ. The bible clearly says otherwise.
Yes, it is. A plinko machine is random (sorta). If I see someone shaking the machine, and using a big magnet to manipulate the little silver balls to bring about a desired result, I can say that the process is being interfered with without redefining what a plinko machine is. If the person doing the interfering is invisible, eternal, all knowing, all powerful and he wants people to have free will and to have the option of denying him, then it is a given that I won’t be able to catch him in the act. Same with evolution. Evolution is random (sorta) but when I declare that God is in control, that does not require me to create an entirely new theory of evolution and to state it in scientific terms that are not subject to semantic manipulation.
Seek and ye shall find. Don’t seek and ye won’t find. Some people seek. Some people don’t. Whether they believe in evolution or not is immaterial. Some will say that evolution is random. Some will say that evolution is directed by God. It is not true that everyone who is taught evolution will fall away. [quote=“Christy, post:153, topic:4659”]
I grew up in a Christian home too, was taught young earth stuff in homeschool curriculum, went to a conservative Evangelical college where I learned my deeply committed Evangelical science professors didn’t have a problem incorporating acceptance of the evolutionary model into their Christian worldview. So I decided to take their word for it as experts in relevant fields. No faith crisis was required.
[/quote]
The important part is to show how old earth and God’s use of evolution fits with the bible.
Our faith states dogmatically that God created the heavens and the earth - thus our discussions do not revolve about this point, unless we are atheists. The Christian faith insists that we do not take God’s name in vain, and in my book, appropriating an inadequately formulated theory and then changing Christian doctrine to accommodate such a theory by saying that is how God did it, is using His name for a vain enterprise.
As I have said, evolution is the current paradigm in biology - it should remain there for the time being. If and when a revolution occurs in biology, and this is shown to provide relevant scientific insights, I am confident that it will add to our faith and understanding of the creation. However it is obvious that evolutionary biology has been used for other purposes, be they theistic or atheistic. We should treat this matter with great caution and skepticism - there is an abundant amount of material that shows science is in harmony with the Christian faith. Why not settle with this? Why is BioLogos (and other liberal Christians) making such a song-and-dance about evolutionary biology? It does not make sense to me.
I’ve always preferred this defintion: “any change in a population’s gene pool - including changes in either ratios of existing genes or in the activation or deactivation of genes…”
As you can see, with a definition like this, life forms are in a constant state of evolution.