But it is usually intuition that is critical and necessary in order to formulate a proper scientific study. We “intuit” that a certain cause-effect exists, then formulate the hypothesis, then the study to document an outcome. The hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, and to be scientific it must be “testable” if not “falsifiable”. A theory, on the other hand, is usually a well confirmed explanation consistent with observations, but not yet proven. Proof requires sufficient evidence for the truth of the proposition, and this can be elusive indeed. Intuition is the basis for the process! But of course it does not rise to the level of asserting it as truth, but Medicodon did not assert that at all.
Sure. But the intuition that leads to fruitful scientific hypotheses and studies is one that informed by a deep knowledge of the field in question. I can use my intuition to ask productive questions about the effect of natural selection on infectious disease, for example, but not to ask anything remotely useful about chemistry.
4 Likes
This is due to a rather unfortunate connection made with “order” in explaining entropy, when it really has nothing to do with this vague abstract human notion of order. It is really just about probability from counting the number of ways of being one thing rather than another. If there are ten times more ways of being A than B, then A will be the higher entropy state which things will tend to. In some cases our notion of disordered happens to be the states which are more numerous.
2 Likes
A theory is never “proven”. That is for logic or math. A theory is supported by testing it’s predictions. When enough instances of predictions that aren’t verified are found the theory is modified or thrown out.
2 Likes
Do you mean a Shepherd in terms of herding the direction of evolution? Or a Shepherd who is a living spiritual being - one who is not bound by the natural universe - one who who loves you and me and guides via the Holy Spirit - one who can guide our intuition to have faith in Him - one who is powerful enough to create the universe and breath life into material beings? I feel the presence of this kind of Shepherd, not a Shepherd that steers a direction of evolution starting with a bunch of chance happening and ending up with human beings simply through material processes …human beings that are intended to bring glorify to Him eternally. That all limits the God as I understand things. The extrapolation of our knowledge with theories to claim there was a Big Bang also limits my understandings of the power of a Creator God. If this God can create a start to anything, then why couldn’t this God create it all quite quickly? It’s hard for me to place man’s theories (knowledge) above a Creator God’s wisdom. The Big Bang theory is full of insolvable issues. Gravity cosmology has crisis after crisis showing up. Yet people cling to these man made ideas …because why?
Why not both? I see God’s hand in guiding evolution just as much he personally guides us. That’s not limiting, rather it’s acknowledging he is free to do whatever he wants. He chose the timeframe he used to create us for a specific reason, even if the full intention is not understood by us completely.
That applies for randomness too. Quantum mechanics is built of probability, and a lot of Christians don’t have a problem with apparent randomness governing the fundamental aspects of the universe. It’s already established that randomness is common in nature, so why would there be a problem using randomness to guide the creation of life? Creation is still with intention and purpose, it’s just the process of it in a slightly different way than we would first think.
Both.
Design has no part in the creation of living organisms. A product of design is a machine and not something which is alive. Simply because something uses DNA molecules or biochemistry does not make it alive. Being alive is a process of self-organization with such as growth, learning, and adaptation. As a result the creators of living things, such as farmers, shepherds, teachers and parents are not creating something by design, but by participating in the subject’s own growth, learning and adaptation processes.
The God we know in the Bible and Christian life is a shepherd and parent not a designer of machines. That is the relationship He has with ALL living things. So yes God can participate in the evolutionary process in that way. And yes also as one who participates in our own lives as a loving parent.
Deism is a product of the inception of the industrial-machine ages where we began to liken God’s creation to our own efforts in the making of machines like watches. But this is just as misleading as the previous way people at the time the Bible was written likened God’s power to that of a human ruler accomplishing things by giving commands as if God needed technically proficient elves in order to do anything. We really must not confuse such human ways of thinking about things with the reality of God Himself.
But isn’t that exactly how Christians typically experience God in their own lives? Using events which teach us something even if to other people they seem coincidental and random. Are you repudiating this Christian experience? And if God does that with us they why should God not do this with other living things?
So are you imagining God as doing whatever you say in whatever way you care to dictate like in the manner of dreams where nothing requires any logical coherence. Is God then the kid down the block dreaming in his sleep. This is not a matter of limiting God but rather one of distinguishing reality from a dream world and distinguishing God from a mere dreamer. I see God as a being with some kind of technical understanding of how to accomplish things in a real word such as we experience in our waking life. Any moronic dufus can dream.
I can see how that might get in the way of a belief in a do-it-all-for-you magical wish fulfillment genie-god. No, I don’t believe in such a god – that is more a product of a child-like demand to have his cake and eat it too.
It is hard for me to place wishful thinking and human willfulness above what God shows us in His creation.
Quite the opposite, they are the ones not clinging to preconceived ideas but looking at God’s creation with eyes, ears, and mind wide open rather than tightly shut refusing to let God teach them anything. It is what God showed them which gave them the understanding of the big bang and they are ready to adjust their understanding of that event with the addition of everything new which God has to show to them. They will keep trying to figure it out no matter how much the religionists protest scientists have trespassed on their own assumed authority imagining they they speak for God so they can lord it over others.
3 Likes
Thanks for bringing this idea to the discussion, George. I would love to learn more.
When you say this, do you mean that the science of evolution cannot be reconciled with sound theology? Or do you mean that the manner in which some have attempted to reconcile them falls short?
Thanks,
Chris
How does the very recent discovery of fossilized sponges from about 900MYA affect the analysis?
Thanks,
Chris
Good observation.
ID also tends to divide nature into things that are the result of natural processes (that eroded rock formation) and things that show evidence of design and couldn’t have happened without God (that bacteria flagellum). But this is a false division that isn’t found in the Bible or traditional Christian faith. The God of Christianity is the Creator and Sustainer of all nature and natural processes. The ID Designer is recognizable only in the areas we associate with our own human intelligence, the places in nature where we see architecture, machines, engineering, etc. So it creates a Designer God in the image of intelligent human designers, which is getting things backwards.
7 Likes
God is never called a designer in scripture.
2 Likes
That would push back Porifera to 900MYA wouldn’t it?
Most of the others he listed seem to be from the Cambrian explosion. But it does make me wonder if some of that so called Cambrian explosion might have more to do with an event which created lots of fossils rather than when these phyla actually first appeared.
1 Like
Depends on just how recent, the book is from 2020, and it cites Antcliffe et. al., 2014 as saying that most Precambrian, including all of the pre-Ediacaran sponges are of debatable age and identity.
Some of both: the disappearance of the extensive shallow-marine algal mats (caused by the advent of burrowing) opened many new niches for marine organisms. We also have a number (~20 vs, 4 Ediacaran ones) of lagerstatte deposits from the early to mid Cambrian, most famously Chengjiang and the Burgess Shale. As a side note, all of those 520 MYAs are “oldest known from Chengjiang”.
He can’t. There is no start to starts.
You are so right.
Of course. That is why I said exactly that
So evolution - and abiogenesis - stands.
Thanks, but I wasn’t aiming to be generous. I think lots of people fall into the category of non-materialist non-theist. I sure did until a few months ago.
1 Like
Hi Chris,
I mean the latter, in that discussions inevitably coalesce into ‘evolution is true or it is false’.
I have been studying various writings to get a better understanding of the Creative act by God and need to say that I have a long way to go on this matter. My very concise statement is that we perceive the unfolding of creation while God sees it all. The analogy often used is that of an acorn growing into a tree. An interesting treatment is:
Energy in Orthodox Theology and Physics: From Controversy to Encounter by Stoyan Tanev.
The author is a physicist and theologian scholar, and discusses the distinction between divine essence and energies, which is related to the distinction between divine nature and will and important for the articulation of the Orthodox teaching on creation. The act that created the world out of nothing is in freedom and love, and would unfold in its own freedom, with humanity in its pre-temporal image in God. God wills every being in its destiny of its future (and its sins) beholding all by means of an inseparable distribution of his grace.
The distinction between divine essence and energies includes the creatureliness and non-self-sufficiency of the world, distinguishing in God between ‘essence’ and ‘that which surrounds the essence,’ ‘that which is related to the nature.’ The divine essence is unattainable and only the powers and operations of God are accessible to knowledge. This distinction is connected to God’s relation to the world.
Tanev considers the encounter between theology and physics and discusses the meaning of energy (I have tried to define the term within Chemistry and have been surprised at the difficulty I encountered. From the Oxford concise: energy (pl. energies) 1 the strength and vitality required for sustained activity. (energies) a person’s physical and mental powers as applied to a particular activity. 2 power derived from physical or chemical resources to provide light and heat or to work machines. 3 Physics the property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work.– DERIVATIVES energize (also energise) – ORIGIN C16: from Fr. énergie, or via late L. from Gk energeia, from en- ‘in, within’ + ergon ‘work’.).
When we discuss the quantum world, we may imagine some very interesting notions, but I feel there is a lot we do not understand – Tanev is a physicist and provides some interesting observations.
He also introduces the conceptualization of divine-human communion as part of a co-creative configurational process, related to actor-network Theory, which has been adopted as part of an interdisciplinary project focusing on using Byzantine philosophical and theological insights within the context of the contemporary sociology of action.
No you said “not yet proven” which implies a theory can be proved. No theory has ever been proved. Just supported which isn’t the same thing as proof.
1 Like