Larry, how would you answer the exact same question from your viewpoint? And how would someone answer from an evolutionary creation viewpoint? If the same answer is “God created everything from the subatomic particles up to self-aware humans”, then what kind of distinction are you trying to point out?
Did you really mean to ask the question ike so: “. . . what predictions can be made about how the elements within the periodic table become self aware.”
There’s a certain edge to this line of inquiry that gives your readers the general impression that someone burnt your morning toast.
Does anyone suggest that elements become self-aware? Are you suggesting that silver might arrive at self-awareness of its sterling character? Or that Tin might suddenly become conscious of its pretense to be like Platinum, but without the self-worth?
These kinds of questions strike me as the kind of formulations made by Young Earth Creationists.
It would seem you have developed a unique animus regarding BioLogos supporters - - for being so bold as to think God would use Evolutionary principles to develop and enhance the formation of living creatures. I definitely get the idea that it upsets you; are you equally upset if someone suggests that God uses the water cycle (and the physics of evaporation) to bring rain to a parched field or a dry valley?
If you review the Mission Statements of BioLogos, it is quite clear in allowing for a combination of the miraculous and the natural in God’s embrace of the Cosmos.
Rather than use the term “Survival of the Fittest”, most BioLogos participants seem to prefer the phrase “Natural Selection”, with the outcome of selection forces being measured in terms of “number of fertile offspring produced” in an “x” period of time (including multigenerational results if applicable).
In reference to your attempt to apply the concept of “survival of the fittest” to non-living matter (silver, carbon, oxygen and so forth), are you suggesting that Oxygen has a secret motive behind its unavailability? Or couldn’t it just be that sometimes the laws of physics provide serendipity of results, and sometimes not. For example, it is fortunate (is it not?) that stars throughout the Universe use hydrogen as fuel - - since hydrogen is one of the most plentiful elements in the Universe?
But isn’t it unfortunate that stars, unlike our biological mothers, do not allow for us to embrace them as though they were loving persons who want nothing but the best for us? I’ve seen some movies - - dare I call them documentaries?! - - where people who tried to get too close to the stars (out of very loving motivations) were burned to a fair-thee-well?
Larry, this is quite the conundrum! Do we chalk it up to a little known conspiracy of inanimate objects vs. all living things?
Or is it really just one of the oddities of nature that someone as lovely and as helpful as the Sun needs to be regarded at quite a distance. The Greeks had a story about this very issue. No doubt you are proud of the Greek attempt to find order in a chaotic Cosmos. In fact, in Greek, “Cosmos” means “order” - - while Chaos means - - - well, I think you get the general idea…
May I recommend English Muffins for tomorrow morning? They are much less prone to burning compared to ordinary wheat products! While you end your prior post with words to be “food for thought”, I have concluded my post with thoughtful words regarding food!! . . . because I’m a little worried about your blood sugar levels.
I don’t believe in evolution so I don’t need to explain how natural electromagnetic bonds between elements and weak and strong forces interacting with particles can create a smile or a frown or a tear from a child when their mother dies suddenly. I don’t believe the periodic table evolved to a point over billions of years to care about the poor and downtrodden among us.
I see NOTHING in evolution that displays the character of our God. Our God says the last shall be first, the rich should take care of the poor, the meek will inherit the earth, love your enemy. I see evolution as the antithesis of Yahweh the God of the bible. What about evolution describes God? What about evolution glorifies Him?
Hi Larry,
Allow me to jump in.
Au contraire. Most here have asked many questions and have given deep thought about the intricacies of biological evolution, and there are threads on all the things you’ve mentioned. What I, and I believe most would say is that we’re convinced, based on the evidence in God’s physical creation, that God used a process that we call biological evolution to produce (create) human beings on earth. Some here have said that they think God did something, “special” to give us a soul, or consciousness, or create the first, “living” thing, etc. Others, like myself, would say that these things are result of natural processes, that God initiated, but we don’t know how at the moment. Again, we concur on evolution due to the evidence, and many of us, like myself, didn’t believe in it until we confronted the evidence.[quote=“Hisword, post:19, topic:36424”]
Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe and is one of the givers of life but there seems to be very little of it available. Does that make sense in the survival of the fittest? Does the ToE predict that outcome? Many questions from those that seem to have none. Just food for thought.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you’re asking or trying to prove. Is it that, because very little oxygen is, “available” (this seems to contradict that oxygen is the 3rd most abundant element), and is needed for life, that God had to do something, “magically”?
On a deeper level, you stated, I believe in your OP, that you see this as an, “important” topic. How important? Do you think that one can be a saved, forgiven, giving, productive, sacrificial and loving follower of Christ while believing in biological evolution? If so, I wonder why you seem so energized to question it.
Logic forces you to affirm that elements become aware. If they don’t become aware how are they aware now? If not, please tell me when they did. Don’t slip this direct question.
When does the ToE say the first self aware being appeared on the tree of life? I won’t hold you to one, how about the transitional creatures before during and after they went from I’m a blob of goo to what do you want for dinner tomorrow dear?
Ok, fair enough. So then how would you answer the question “How do the weak and strong forces interacting with particles create a smile or a frown or a tear in God’s created humans?” And do you think an evolutionary creationist would answer differently?
To be fair, these are instructions for how God’s children should interact with others. We are held to a higher standard than other living organisms of God’s creation. I don’t think God expects fruit flies to follow these instructions.
Personally, I think evolution speaks volumes about God’s transcendency and creativity. The genius of setting up all the correct parameters so that life would develop the way it did shows unfathomable intelligence and ultimate sovereignty of His creation.
@Hisword, Larry, I think you are confused on a key point.
Everything is possible with God. And since we are not Atheists here (generally speaking that is, allowing for the smattering of well-intentioned atheists here and there), why do you think it is so silly to speak of the rise of consciousness in a world of divine awareness?
Consciousness is one of my principle proofs for the existence of God. While you, it would seem, make folly out of the idea of awareness - - even, it woud seem, to make folly out of God’s creations.
I recommend blackberry preserves … there’s a tart edge in the flavor that will keep your tongue good company.
@Richard_Wright1 I’ll answer this first. [quote=“Richard_Wright1, post:24, topic:36424”]
this as an, “important” topic. How important?
[/quote]
I am convinced that the logical result of the movement of evolutionary creationism will destroy the reliability of the scripture and if unchecked will result in the next generation to fully reject the bible.
I’m am not afraid of the truth!
Scientific discovery is at the TOP OF MY LIST of the things I enjoy. Scientific Discovery is how God displays His glory to us all. I can’t get enough of the wonders that we see as far out as we can go and as far in as we can go as well. I LOVE CERN. I do not love the conclusions.
Evolution does not fit the biblical account nor does it explain the world that we live in. Particles do not become alive by natural process. Period. It has never been done! Why not do that and prove the whole thing true??
Then fortunately for you, there is BioLogos! We examine the wonders of God’s work and creation … but we celebrate and glorify God’s work to bring life to simple matter. God is at the core of all that majesty!
Man, that was close … I thought you were being facetious … when all you were worried about is giving the glory to God!
Evolution is ONLY about explaining the diversity of species we see. That’s it. As for your question about evolution glorifying God, have you never been amazed at the beauty of the natural world? Never gone to a Natural History museum and stood near a [dinosaur of unfathomable size]
(Redirecting...), or better yet, shared that experience with a child?
Slight aside. What do you love about CERN and conclusions do you not like? I love Cosmology, Cosmogony, genetics, geology, etc. and am excited about the conclusions we reach and move towards
“I I don’t believe in evolution…” @Hisword
Welcome to Biologos, neither do we!! This actually points up one of the misconceptions I think you have. You seem to be presenting evolution as a faith issue, when we (speaking for many here, though I will add perhaps not all) do not see it as such. In science, we understand things as being compatable with the evidence, or not, but not as something to “believe.” It gets confusing as at times I and others get lazy and use the word in the sense of “think this is true” but should never use it in the sense of " have faith" when applied to scientific information.
Hey man, I think I understand where you’re coming from. I believe your premise is that since the bible describes creation as 7 24 hour days (which I would agree) that when people claim evolution, then they’re automatically challenging the authority of scripture. I think what would help you would be to question your own convictions about what Genesis 1-2 may be saying rather than trying to poke holes in evolution. If you begin with your own premise, you’ll find a million questions to ask.
The issue, it seems, is that you’re looking for the bible to tell you about scientific truths, something that the bible doesn’t intend to do. Begin with a hermenuetical approach rather than to only defend your already established premise. I say that from experience. I don’t know much about science. I still don’t fully understand the evolution process. But I realize now what Genesis isn’t saying and having a better hermeneutical approach has brought further questions yes, and caused me to rethink some things, but that’s good. It’s part of life’s learning curve. I admire your zeal and passion to honor God’s word brother and to protect the reliability of scripture but realize that that’s a mission of all of us believers here as well. We love the bible and like you, we believe it’s God’s word. But the bible has a very specific purpose, and to present scientific facts is not one of them.
Thanks, Kendal, this was right on point. I would also like to add that I (and many others here!) also hold God’s Word in extremely high regard. My different interpretation of Genesis does not mean that I do not accept the Bible as an authoritative guide for my life.
Right! Ditto! I wish our brother Ken Ham and the AiG fam could understand that lol
I have some sympathy for this outlook purely from the statements on Biologos that “evolution is how God did … etc” I think the confusion on “is it faith, or science” will continue as long as this wording is used.
To be clear, any statement that begins with “God does, or did …” is a theological statement by definition, and on that basis it is first and foremost a faith issue.
Self-awareness is a bit tricky to define scientifically, so let’s figure out some baseline questions that might help clarify the matter. First, is a bacterium self-aware? How about a mouse? I’m going to guess most people would answer that a bacterium is not but that a mouse is. So then we need to narrow it down some more. Are plants self-aware? Is a sponge? A flea? A dragonfly? A fish? It would help enormously if you could pin down where the dividing line is for this concept you call self-awareness, and then we can look at the simplest creature you believe has self-awareness, and we can see if it could reasonably have developed from a more primitive creature without self-awareness.
I don’t believe questions like this (and others from this Hisword on this thread) are offered in good faith. This is a familiar pattern that I (and maybe others) have seen–ask non-scientific questions* in a sort of ultimatum, gotcha format. And sprinkle in the occassional suspect assurance of an open mind-- how one’s questions really, really are reflective of a true curiosity to learn.
This is, in my opinion, really just a variant on “What good is half an eye?” with all the attendant smugness.
The irony here is that while I support EC, my answer for self-awareness (for a suitable definition of self-awareness) is that GodDidIt. Evolution (never outside God’s sovereignty) may have provided our Homo Sapien forms, but it was God who, by His decretive will, made us human.
- There are, of course, legitimate questions about the evolutionary explanations (or lack thereof) of the development of consciousness. But the framing of the questions as Tell me now: how and when did elements became self-aware? is, to me, a red flag that this particular interaction is a waste of time.
[EDITED for typos]
How does logic force us to affirm that elements become aware? Don’t slip this direct question.