Why is it that both atheist and theist biologists agree with the scientific conclusion that there is no evidence for guidance within the process of evolution? Just to be clear, I am talking about the scientific conclusion. As has been discussed in many threads, science does not make any claims to absolute truth or ontological truths. Science is limited to the evidence it can measure which means its conclusions are also limited. While scientists may agree with the scientific conclusion, they may also believe that God is still guiding evolution. Those two positions are not in contradiction with one another. While I may not believe in God guiding evolution like some of my fellow Christian biologists, we find easy agreement on the science. So how is that?
The short answer is that we find agreement because we agree on the statistics.
A quick example might help illustrate this point. Letâs say you have a smart phone app that claims it has the ability to accurately predict the outcome of a roll of the die (6 sided for this example). What experiment would we design to test this claim? First, we need a model for randomness. While any single roll is unpredictable, the cumulative outcome of millions of rolls can be modeled. In this case, the expected random pattern of die rolls would have an even distribution for all six outcomes. Ok, we now have our random model. We then have the app attempt to predict 1,000 rolls of the die and compare the results to our random model. Using statistical tests, we can determine if there is a significant difference between the outcome of the experiment and our random model. If the data from the experiment closely matches the random model then we tentatively conclude that the evidence doesnât support the claims made by the app.
We can do the same for mutations in biology. We can construct a random model that can predict how many random mutations (i.e. guesses) would need to happen to find a specific beneficial mutation. Using our example from above, we would expect more ârightâ guesses (i.e. beneficial mutations) than we would expect from random guesses. What do these experiments show? The rate of beneficial mutations is indistinguishable from what we would expect from random guesses. This is why both atheist and theist biologists agree that mutations are random with respect to fitness in a scientific sense.
What would scientific evidence for guidance in evolution look like? I can think at least two examples:
When a bacterial population is exposed to antibiotics, nearly all the individuals in the next generation carry a new mutation that confers resistance. The same beneficial mutation occurs in nearly all new cell divisions.
Genetic sequences converge based on ecological challenges. For example, a lineage of placental mammals evolves feathers with feather genes that more closely resemble bird genes that those in other mammals.
Scientists arenât rejecting guidance within the confines of science because guidance isnât allowed or is forbidden to even be considered. Rather, the evidence is indistinguishable from our statistical models of what no guidance would look like. Does that prevent a scientist from also believing that God is guiding evolution in a manner that we canât detect? Obviously not. BioLogos is full of people who both accept the scientific conclusion and believe God is guiding evolution. While I may not share that belief, we can still agree on the science. In fact, there could have been natural processes that result in significant numbers non-random mutations across all life, but none have been discovered to date.
This is where Dr. Behe mystifies me. I love his use of the Billiards/Pool table analogy.
But I just donât understand how he attempts to imply that some events in Evolution are
not part of Godâs activities, while some are. How does he control for God as an
independent variable?
Iâve always thought Behe contradicts himself on occasion. On one hand we have the Pool table analogy that seems to be a theological position that wouldnât be scientifically detectable. On the other, Behe tries to claim he can scientifically demonstrate that certain features could not evolve through the mechanisms we see operating today. Overall, Behe seems like a pretty nice dude, so I have always assumed he is honestly mistaken about the science and understand his position to be a theological one.
Thatâs the way I understand it as well. This is the type of agreement I tried to stress in the opening post. While we may not share the same beliefs, we can find agreement on what science can detect, or has detected.
Do you have any critiques of my opening post? Any suggested changes to the way I describe Christian scientists who accept the theory of evolution with respect to guidance?
There just isnât a way to demonstrate Godâs guidance.
To describe it hypothetically isnât valid eitherâŚ. except maybe along the lines of
the Two Boxes image above.
Once both sides are at peace with this, things will start to become a little more sane.
There will never be a way to prove something is SUPERnatural, rather than
PROVIDENTIAL (aka a natural event with divine implications).
I agree, Christians such as yourself donât think Godâs guidance would produce those observations. If we are asking what it would take for scientists to accept guidance in evolution on scientific grounds then that is the type of evidence that would do it. However, no such evidence is needed within Christian theology.
What I often hear from skeptics is that scientists wonât even consider guidance. I was hoping this thread could demonstrate this isnât true, especially since there are many biologists who accept the consensus scientific view of evolution and Godâs guidance. We can consider guidance in science, but not everyone is going to react the same way to those findings, or lack thereof.
When you hear this objection, simply say that Millions and Millions of Americans accept
that God Guided his Creation of life on earth VIA Evolution. And about 1/3rd of Scientists
are conventional Theists:
Pew Research (2009): 51% of scientists (members of the AAAS) believe in God or a higher power; 33% believe in God, 18% in a universal spirit.
(National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Members: Belief is much lower, with some sources citing around 7% believing in God, indicating a potential disconnect between elite scientists and the broader scientific community.)
Roughly 90-95% of the general U.S. public believes in God or a higher power, far exceeding scientistsâ belief rates. By Specialty, belief tends to be higher in some fields (like chemistry/geography) and lower in others (like biology).
Constant guidance has been ruled out by the experiments that showed mutations in bacteria are random w.r.t. fitness.
Occasional guidance can never be ruled out because it can always be claimed what we havenât seen that this isnât such an occasion. It could be ruled in, but I doubt it ever will be, and until it is thereâs no logical reason to consider it.
There are a few people who have allegedly converted to intelligent design based on biological evidence, but most of the ones Iâm aware of have done so based on biological âevidenceâ fed to them by creationists and IDers, without talking to actual evolutionary biologists.
But most of those scientists donât study evolution. Thereâs not much point in asking a metallurgist or an economist whether they will consider guidance in evolution; its completely outside their field of expertise and their opinion may be no more relevant that that of a carpenter or pizza deliverer.
The scientists whose choice to consider guidance matters are those who study pertinent fields, such as biology, biochemistry, genetics or palaeontology. IIRC the percentages are lower among those fields.
P.S. The percentages for the USA are higher than for the rest of the world.
But why would they not just accept the verdict of a fellow scientist who âshouldâ know?
Maybe they do not consider it to be something worth fretting over. IOW it doesnât even cross their minds, so when asked they just tow the Christian party line.
This unsolicited jar-dropping post has peaked my interest @Christy, but Iâll wait with baited breath for moderator guidance. I hope youâll give me free reign, rather than make my response a damp squid or vanish like an old oak table. Though Iâll take my just desserts if it does.[1]
It is perfectly acceptable to communicate how silly you think an assertion is. The trick is to do it without communicating that any one individualâs education, religion, intelligence, or emotional stability is the source of the silliness. I have faith that you are creative and smart enough to express your disagreement with an idea without resorting to personal insults or speaking for the rational or emotional states of other peopleâs minds. Speak for your own mind and what makes sense (or does not make sense) to you.
For us A-T Christians, God upholds and sustains all material objects and processes at all timesâincluding those driving mutation and evolution. We subscribe to God as primary cause while admitting secondary cause exist and derive their power from God. For us, God could have gone beyond the natural order to do this internally by nudging mutations or even externally by shifting an asteroid. Most of us Christians believe very strongly in an ordered natural world. The exception of supernatural miracles derives all its force from just how ordered the world is.
God guided could mean God has to step in and nudge things or it could simply mean God uses the process of natural selection and mutation to achieve His ends. I am highly skeptical a statistical model could actually rule out Godâs involvement in anything, I am guessing you mean supernatural involvement but even then, I doubt these models are good enough to do that without building in that assumption. For us, the issue is did God create the physical portion of humans (excluding the rational soul) solely through the ordinary way he runs things or did he God beyond them because there is an inherent freedom he allows in creation. Either way, evolution is certainly God-guided to us.
This misunderstanding is one that I call âepisodic deism.â I think this is poor theology because it says that God usually lets nature run âon its ownâ except when God intervenes to push it in certain directionsâ but I donât think that nature ever runs âon its own.â The Bible repeatedly affirms that when things happen in the natural world, God is still doing it. The sun goes down; God brings darkness. The beasts of the forest prowl; God gives them their food. Birds of the air eat seeds and insects and worms, and they receive their food from God (Psalm 104:19-21, Matthew 6:26). When things are happening in the natural world the way they always happen, in ways we can describe scientifically, God is just as much in charge as when God performs a miracle.
I love the word choice of episodic deism because that is exactly how I understand a mechanistic image of God that seems prevalent in so many discussions today. Loren goes on to use a useful analogy about rain:
Theologically, I believe that God sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Scientifically, I describe rainfall in terms of evaporation and condensation and warm fronts and colds fronts. I donât think God needs to ânudgeâ the clouds to make it happen the way God wants (although of course God could do so). Theologically, I believe that God makes trees grow. Scientifically, I would describe trees growing through photosynthesis and transpiration and lots of other chemical processes. I donât think God needs to nudge the molecules in order to make each tree grow (although of course God could do so).
I would imagine, yes, since they find a way to oppose vaccines, heliocentrism, pasteurization, germ theory, blood transfusions, sex education, birth control, IUDs, D&Cs, ecology, water efficient toilets and showers, teaching women math, and all manner of scientific applications that have no attached Bible verses. Seems they are just oppositional in many ways and have decided science is âof the Devil.â
