I have stated repeatedly that ToE is for biologists - other branches of science simply do not need it or think it is all that relevant to their disciplines. I object to ToE becoming part of theological debates (or ant-theistic debates for that matter).
There is actually: we would expect life to have evolved to closely fit existing conditions.
1 Like
There is no way that any science or scientist can deduce what we term āfine tuningā from any scientific theory. The argument than becomes one in which random events can lead to what we have now - within this context, it is absurdly obvious that the constants of science and āfine tuningā aspects cannot fit in with any random or āaccidentalā materialistic scenario.
Whenever I see āthe Fine Tuning Argumentā mentioned, Iām never quite sure of the definition. It circulates in a number of popular versions.
Ben Carson, M.D., claims enthusiastically and almost ecstatically that the fine-tuning argument āproves Godā. He starts with an explanation that āthe earth is exactly the right distance from the sun.ā He says, āIf the earth was a million miles closer to the sun, weād be burned to a crisp. If the sun were a million miles further from the sun, weād all be frozen solid. God picked the perfect distance for the earthās orbit around the sun.ā Thankfully, in this venue I donāt have to explain how many things Carson gets wrong about that kind of āfine-tuning argument.ā (Face-palm.) And before anyone chuckles, he wrote an entire book that was crammed full of these types of science blundersāeven before one starts to pick apart his theological cogitations.
In contrast, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe describes the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of various fundamental constants found in physics textbooks. For me to put it only approximately (because my memory is foggy), Ross emphasizes that if there had been even the tiniest difference in the weight of one particular sub-atomic particle and in the charge energy of another and the attractive force of yet another, weād live in a universe we wouldnāt at all recognize. Ross claims that a tiny change in the ātuningā of such constants would prevent fusion processes which produce elements heavier than hydrogen and heliumāor even any atoms at all! No diversity of elements, no biochemistry.
I make the stark comparison between Carsonās fine-tuning argument and Rossā fine-tuning argument to explain why the term strikes me as so ambiguous. Hopefully participants here who are far more familiar with the literature could clarify the definition of the fine-tuning argument. Carsonās version is laughableāor tragic actually, because I hear Christians who repeat his bloopers after theyāve heard him speak or read his bookābut Hugh Ross certainly makes a far more interesting and engaging argument. (However, I nevertheless canāt help but notice some shortcomings in it. Even so, I think it is at least a respectable attempt.)
Is there a standard definition of the fine-tuning argument that we can assume in such discussions? Are all of the versions of the argument fundamentally flawed?
I am honestly confused what post of mine this is in response to.
Ok, I can accept that. Unfortunately, when you first log on to biologos.org, the first sentence you see is:
āBioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of Godās creation.ā
Iām unsure how you propose to frequent the forum while also avoiding conversations regarding the intersection of evolution and theology.
4 Likes
The conversation that interest me is science-faith; one major reason I frequent this site is because I find the āculture warsā between US YEC, ID and TE startling within the Christian faith. So it is more of the unusual, and not so much about who believes in evolution. My attempts at discouraging such focus on ToE, and my objection to it as āordained by Godā has met with fierce and at times weird resistance - which in itself is interesting within the science-faith discussion.
I am similarly confused.
Perhaps it helps to consider that Science is confined to the Scientific Method which is confined to explaining evidence in terms of natural processes. Philosophy and theology, on the other hand, are not so confined. Philosophers and theologians are at liberty to discuss anything from any domain. Indeed, modern science developed from Natural Philosophy, a subset of philosophy which arose when philosophers realized that restricting the domain of scientific inquiry provided a basis for structured methodologies and less interference from biased traditions, folklore, mythology, and politics, among other forces. The limitations inherent to the scientific method are also what makes science so powerful. There are many questions science canāt addressābut what science can address it can tackle quite powerfully and produce very useful results.
Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that science doesnāt investigate theological topics like the existence of Godābecause there is no means for the scientific method to observe or test for the existence of non-natural entities. But there is no reason why philosophy or theology canāt investigate anything within the domain of science.
Thus, I suppose we could say that the limitations and boundaries of the academic fields are not symmetrical/reciprocal.
1 Like
If I understood your confusion, it may lead to the suggestion that only those involved or interested in evolution should frequent this site. There are many sites, I am sure, where evolution may be discussed, Your apparent confusion presents an odd outlook for a site devoted to US Christian Evangelists. I prefer to place discussions on the Christian faith front and center and then consider what science has to say.
There are numerous discussions that use the phrase āfine tuningā - if I remember, Hoyle (an atheist) may have coined this phrase. In any event, a search of literature should enable you to obtain a better understanding of the phrase.
Ahhh ā¦ well for that higher goal post I think without checking that many of those listed will / or have probably conceded that there will be no proof of such a thing in some air tight logical or scientific sense. (though there may be some that actually do, or are willing to plant their flags so close to that as an evidential certainty that they speak of it as proof in casual discourse.)
No, what I am speaking of is the general (and usually implicitly accepted rather than outright stated) agreement between YECs and anti-theists that scientific explanations are preclusive of any Divine involvement ā¦ e.g. explanation of phenomena is some kind of āzero sumā game in which any spiritual explanations can be replaced by physical ones if or when they become handy. The two are allegedly in competition. One has to look no farther than this very thread to see this in operation. The conversation starting between Peter and John Walton shows this in spades. Peter proposes something [fine tuning] that if hard to explain may help bolster the faith of some, and John Dalton who then attempts to provide enough physical explanation so as to knock this down. Both have implicitly agreed with each other that this battle is to be adjudicated on scientific/mathematical grounds, and that the victor emerges triumphant over the other (or something very much like that). This is Scientism, pure and simple, and is all over the place. One doesnāt need to search hard to find it as I have just illustrated. This is the fuel so badly needed for the whole enterprise known as ācreation scienceā. The very name itself is revealing, and they have so many atheists to thank for an unending supply to keep them going.
1 Like
Again, since this is a point of focus for many (and likely most) people here, it is probably unfair to expect the entire rest of the forum to comply with your wishes. Why would you find it unusual to take such a minority position among frequent posters and receive objections?
2 Likes
Instead of looking at what is being taught, have you looked at the actual evidence, particularly the sequence evidence?
You make a good argument. I am assuming that you are referring to the weak anthropic principle, which is based on the assumption that there are many other universes. What is the reason that you believe that there are other universes?
It is indeed strange that any serious discussion on faith-science is considered a minority position on this site. As I mentioned earlier, there are places for discussions exclusively on ToE. Btw I have tried to be inclusive by looking at all of the natural sciences (including biology) from a philosophy of science perspective. This too has upset the ToE cabal on this site - truly a puzzling situation.
My approach to the faith-science discussion is not a minority position within the wider discussions amongst Christians - it would be instructive if evangelicals realised this.
What I meant was your position that it is erroneous to consider that God is involved in evolution. I did not mean to suggest that āany serious faith-scienceā discussion was a āminority positionā. I suspect you probably knew this since I directly quoted your comment on the matter.
1 Like
Your view of my position is erroneous - I state categorically that God is the Creator of heaven and earth. This is a theological statement, as are all statements discussing Godās attributes in human terms. Thus it is gross error to identify any branch of the natural science as specific theological statements regarding God. let alone His involvement.
I promise I am not being intentionally obtuseā¦ But how is what I paraphrased different from what you stated?
1 Like
Hi George,
I think the majority of Christian commenters here do not think that evolution (or physics or chemistry, etc.) make any theological statements.
Instead, they (and I) state that natural processes were created by God. Since God is wise and all-knowing, we go on to claim that the natural processes were designed by God to achieve His ends (teloi, in Greek). This is what most of us mean when we say that natural processes such as ionic bonds and evolution are ordained by God. āOrdained by Godā simply means that God created them and achieves His purposes through them.
Iāand I believe most commenters hereādo not believe that we can learn Godās attributes through the study of natural processes, other than those specific ones that St. Paul mentions in Romans 1:20:
For since the creation of the world Godās invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
I think you are getting confused by our use of terminology. Some YEC and ID critics claim that scientific processes that are described in terms of randomness are inherently godless and soulless, and thus must be rejected as valid on theological grounds. We reply, āNo, God created them for His purposes, so they are not godless and soulless. They are ordained by God.ā
When we say that, you get confused by the terminology, because you believe we are making theological claims about evolutionāas if we believe it has some particular stature among the sciences in giving insight into Godās attributes. I believe that I speak for most of my colleagues on this forum in stating categorically:
We are not claiming that evolution has any particular theological distinction among the sciences. Like any observation about anything in creation, observations about evolution point to Godās eternal power and divine nature.
Whenever you see terminology that confuses you or makes you wonder if we are speaking heretically, I hope that you will not assume the worst about our understanding of science and faith. I hope that instead you will come back to this thread and read this post.
BTW, I havenāt forgotten about the mathematical formulation of the genomic evidence for common descent from the other thread. My life has just been extremely busy with other concerns. I thank you for your continuing patience.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
6 Likes
Hi Chris,
I have not stated that BioLogos teaches heresy or that anyone in particular is a heretic. I think our approaches differ in emphasis, and I might add, terminology is terribly important when we discuss science, but as I have found out, it is even more so when we discuss theology - especially on matters attributed to God.
I re-iterate that all of the disciplines of natural science are human constructs, and will contain error, so on what God uses etc., I think we will have to agree to disagree on our terminology.
Thanks for your effort on the maths on UCA - I have progresses to āwonderingā how such a limited selection can be used for computations that are universal, and how comparing two limited models adds anything to the premise of UCA - but I have stopped reading until I hear from you on how you assess the mathematical methods used - I will confess that I need to steel myself for greater controversy.
Perhaps my response to Chris may clear things for you.