What Would Scientific Evidence for Guidance in Evolution Look Like?

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Vinnie

For us A-T Christians, God upholds and sustains all material objects and processes at all times–including 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.

What do you think of this quote from Romanes?

Therefore throughout this essay I refer to design in the sense understood by the narrower forms of teleology, or as an immediate cause of the observed phenomena. Whether or not there is an ultimate cause of a psychical kind pervading all nature, a causa causarum which is the final raison d’être of the cosmos, this is another question which, as I have said, I take to present no point of logical contact with Mr. Darwin’s theory, or, I may add, with any of the methods and results of natural science.

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

Romanes was shooting for a more general theistic position which may not be specific enough for Christian theology, but what do you think of the differentiation between immediate and ultimate causes? Does that mesh with what you are describing?

@Vinnie

Can’t we agree that scientists, in general today, make poor philosophers? In the past, scientists knew philosophy as well to a fair degree. Today they do not. That is the problem.

I fail to see why it’s a problem, unless scientists want to write books or papers on philosophy. The average car mechanic or taxi driver are probably bad philosophers. I would think your average scientists is as good a philosopher as your average person in the pew.

@Vinnie

Why ask scientists about God’s existence unless you are fixated on a mechanistic image of God and finding gaps?

I completely agree. Being a scientist doesn’t give your opinion on theology any more weight than other professions (except for those in the ministry) or your average person on the street. For example, I couldn’t care less about Dawkins’ opinions on religion.

@Vinnie

And as for your comment on “potential disconnect between elite scientists and the broader scientific community” I would say that I do not think the opinion of NAS scientists on the question of God, which is not a scientific question, carries any more weight than any other scientists.

Or any other person on the street, as stated above. We have complete agreement on this one.