On that we can agree.
Richard
While it may be expected that scientists at some point, deliberately or casually, accept evolution as making sense to them and a working basis for research, I think more are motivated by curiosity, and the practical requirement to communicate their results, than any need to justify a worldview. Most are not even conscious of ID or just ignore it. The antagonistic fixation ID has on mainstream science is not requited.
2 Likes
No, to theologians. Genesis portrays a period of Creation followed by most of time when natural processes in a rhythm of seasons and years took over. The prophets portray a faithful God Who can be counted on â and running with two different sets of rules doesnât make for being able to be counted on.
2 Likes
Basically none of this actually both relates in a meaningful way and is usefully applicable to what it is intended as a reply to. This continues the pattern of
This continues to be an unevidenced argument from incredulity and hasnât improved in the last several uses.
This is either a nirvana fallacy or willful ignorance, and Iâm still not totally sure of which. This is likewise an unevidenced argument that has not improved with repetition.
So were the fossils being studied. So were the DNA sequences whose sets of changes accumulated over time can be observed.
Youâre now asserting that someone explicitly espousing divine sovereignty over all events is espousing deism, which really doesnât make for a good argument.
Thatâs the same problem of evil that applies to basically any view, and isnât very specific to this one.
How is this portraying it as perfect?
See above.
I canât figure out if this is utterly misunderstanding the original or slandering, but itâs one of the two. The post being replied to repeatedly and explicitly affirms miracles and the supernatural; what it is pointing out is that they are never used pointlessly nor unnecessarily, and often contain significant amounts of using natural means, such as a wind, or people talking, or a landslide, or the like. Biblical descriptions of the supernatural are not of something used to effect whatever people want or used in ways that constantly violate normal patterns, unlike what is depicted in certain extra-biblical writings or modern fiction.
4 Likes
You keep repeating this and it makes no sense. God has no rules to abide by. God is God.
And you talk of evolution as if it is after day 6. Why. Evolution replaces days 1-6! They are incompatible. Why are you trying to merge them?
I am not going to go through your post. it is so biased and uninformed I do not know where to start.
Fossils are not on a par with Scripture. I fail to see how you could think they are.
Scientific evidence for ToE is corroborative at best. It is speculation and Naturalism that excludes God
You have been indoctrinated.
Therefore you fail to see the flaws in ToE.
And as for deism! What is God if He isnât a Deity?
So you admit ToE is evil. How can it be from God then!
Yes there is a certain amount of misunderstanding until we come to the bit about necessity. How are you going to define necessity in creation? The fact is ToE fails without Godâs guidance. ToE needs guidance. ToE implies guidance. ToE build things that never exited before. By fluke? Are you kidding?
Richard
They are similar in both having been rough contemporaries of the events which they are describing or used to describe; that is the relevant point of similarity here.
And not science that excludes God. Science cannot measure God, so science can neither include nor exclude Him.
???
Deism is the belief that God set things up and is just letting them run with no interactions.
Someone who actually espousing this:
would be a deist. Someone who says this:
is absolutely not a deist. Therefore, replying to the latter with the former is somewhere between irrelevant and silly.
I am not saying that it is evil; if evolutionary processes are evil, then so is much of how life operates today. The Bible does not seem to view predation or animal death as consistently evil (Psalm 104:20-22 and any NT passage that references Jesus or his followers consuming meat); thus, Godâs use of a process involving death to achieve His ends does not seem to be outside of what is described in scripture.
In this specific case, itâs âNot superseding natural laws if they need not be superseded to achieve a result.â When that comes into play is a more difficult question and requires some knowledge of science to determineâwe need to know that virgins giving birth, dead people not staying dead, or axe heads floating are not normal occurrences to determine whether those might involve supernatural effects, or are miracles of very precise timing of natural events.
So does everything else, so that isnât really a specific applicable critique.
But not any more than any other scientific theory and not in any way that is measurable.
Not in any way beyond gravity or plate tectonics.
Just like how gravity can build planets that never existed before?
Just like how random air currents build clouds that never existed before? or stochastic currents form coastal landforms that never existed before? or build islands that never existed before?
1 Like
I would never claim that anyone is trying to âjustify their worldviewâ, either consciously or unconsciously. When a materialist/atheist denies that Jesus rose from the dead, and instead embraces some theory of the disciples conspiring to steal Jesusâs body, he isnât âjustifying his worldview.â
Rather, it is that his worldview has excluded some possible conclusions a priori. The point I think is pretty straightforward and axiomatic: unless the naturalist chooses to change his worldview, he simply cannot even consider a supernatural explanation. Even considering a supernatural explanation is strictly within the purview of those worldviews that acknowledge the existence of the supernatural, by definition. Worldviews that unabashedly deny the existence of the supernatural simply cannot consider supernatural explanations for any phenomena, no?
And many ignore it specifically because of the aforementioned worldview considerations, no? And if so, many are not conscious of it perhaps because it because of the way it is ignored by those who are aware of it and dismiss it because of worldview commitments? And if one isnât even conscious of competing theories, just how informed an opinion can one have if they claim that such-and-such is the âbest explanationâ?
This is what feeds much of my skepticism when people appeal to âmainstream scienceâ. I imagine this is not dissimilar to what Galileo was dealing with⌠people dismissing his ideas, ignoring them, banning them, or not even having the chance to become aware of them, due to the worldview factors of the âgatekeepersâ of authorized truth⌠Either by banning books in the 17th century or by excluding certain proposals from scientific journals in the 21st century.
What if you took your above paragraphs and made the following substitution (since you brought up Galileo). Here are your paragraphs again - but with one special substitution I made in place of âtheory of evolutionâ.
Perhaps, but it still canât be denied that many scientists are inclined to accept the theory of heliocentricity (moving earth) as it is the only option that fits within their world view. âŚ
This doesnât speak to whether the theory is or is not true or false, of course, but it does caution that many scientists do have a vested interest in that theory being true, and a similar prejudice against openly considering the claims of geocentrism or that God directs the planets in their courses.
Since a moving earth (or even a flat earth) was ostensibly more the âreligiousâ take at that time, and Galileo and his ilk were deemed to be poking at that orthodoxy from the âoutsideâ as it were, does that mean that Galileo made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist? Shouldnât you be concerned that the vast majority of scientists today who accept a round and moving earth are just exercising massive confirmation bias by investing so much time into âmoving / roundâ earth presumptions - because after all, they probably have not spent much time considering alternate points of view that are certainly still out there!
2 Likes
In fairness, I personally donât think this is due to âmarketingâ, as much as simple honesty about scientific method⌠And I think the logic is inescapable.âŚ
I often use the hypothetical example of an archaeologist who happened to find the original tablets of the 10 Commandments that were inscribed by God⌠Even if he were personally convinced for various reasons that they were indeed the original tablets of the law inscribed by the hand of God, His scientific or historic method would not be able to affirm if it were carved by humans or God or aliens. Simply that they were clearly carved by intelligent agency. This is simply the limits of the scientific and/or historical method.
(Not to mention, in the future (if not already), in this age of âgenetically modifiedâ stuff, there is, or will be, a certain forensic or investigative science, that examines DNA, and determines whether or not it exhibits evidence of intentional modification / design, or whether it is the result of strictly natural processes, no?)
As do I, Calvinist that I am, and concur that God is working through events that seem completely ânaturalâ or otherwise non-supernatural, such as the events surrounding Esther, or Joseph.
But the reason I am sympathetic to ID, for what it is worth, is that there are certain things that I yet attribute to very intentional, conscious telligent purpose or direct agency that is simply inconsistent with how Godâs providence otherwise rules over normal events.
If you invited me to your home to play poker, and I noticed that every time you dealt you happened to receive a Royal Flush⌠at some point I wouldnât attribute that to the natural outworking of Godâs providence through the natural course of events, but as evidence of âintelligent agencyâ beyond what is normally attributable to nature working under Godâs providence, no?
1 Like
Iâm not following how Galileoâs theories made it possible for anyone to be an atheist, intellectually fulfilled or otherwise. Galileoâs theories impacted biblical interpretation, not so much belief in God or not. heliocentrism vs geocentrism was a question of what Scripture taught, not how God had chosen to order the solar system. Either model assumed God had allowed the solar system to follow certain physical laws.
Regardless, my underlying point would be simply this⌠As a believer in God, and one who acknowledges the reality of the supernatural, then any open minded inquiry should be one that says, âI will follow the evidence whereever it leadsâ⌠Rather than, âI will follow the evidence so long as it leads to certain predetermined conclusionsâ, or âI will follow the evidence but not if it leads to certain conclusionsâ.
Agreed that the church was the one determining what the âapprovedâ conclusions were in the 17th century, but it certainly appears to me that Darwinists are the ones determining the âapprovedâ conclusions here in the 21st.
1 Like
First off, let me grant that there is a cohort of obnoxious, militant, atheist scientists/science communicators that loudly claim that any accommodation with faith is a empirical cop out. There does seem to be a tilt towards atheism in the more exclusive academies. But if one attends a science conference or poster presentation, there is most likely a range of worldviews present not much different from any random crowd, including Christian, and most scientists are pretty unconcerned with what others believe beyond their research.
If a lab A is investigating the role of certain genetic alleles in cancer, it is not likely that ruling out voodoo dolls, spectral vapors, or supernatural agents, would be on the to do list.
If down the hall, lab B is doing phylogeny analysis of genomes to determine ancestral relatedness, why would they be any more obliged to consider supernatural explanations than lab A? I do not see why one lab is more materialist in their worldview than the other.
3 Likes
Also, in case you are interested, for what it is worth, I personally make a distinction between things that are literally observable, testable, and repeatable, and those things that are inferences from observations.
In some of my previous studies, I did standard experiments on fruit flies, and observed their âevolutionâ across generations right in front of my eyes. The same can be done with bacteria, etc.
We live in an era where Heliocentrism or round earth can quite readily be directly observed in various manners, and hence why i have little sympathy for alternate views in that field. But I would have the same core objection to the way that Darwinism is held as the only possible theory as I would to someone that held that dark matter or string theory or the Copenhagen interpretation was the only âauthorizedâ theory allowed to be discussed to explain various observations of the natural universe.
1 Like
Not just âDarwinistsâ, but also meteorologists, astrophysicists, geologists, plumbers ⌠because they too seem to have a godless, atheistic grasp of what causes rain to fall or planets to orbit, or volcanoes to erupt, or water pressure to spray out of a leak. None of them seems interested in allowing God-talk or supernatural bits into their understandings. So by your logic arenât they too then just giving in to atheism?
Ok - so you do object that all these things are directly observeable now whereas evolution can only be a 2nd class citizen of science because it is, in an allegedly âuniqueâ way, an âhistoricalâ science. The old âyou werenât thereâ trope. But that doesnât fly either if one is going to be serious about taking evidence into account at all - either in forensics for court cases (which strangely enough nobody seems to have any problems with - why does it get a pass?) Biological evolution seems to be the one field that must, unlike every other science (historical or otherwise), - it is being taken to task for not reserving or at least allowing for a God-spot somewhere! You say you want to follow the evidence where it has led ⌠Very good! Look where itâs led and still leads! To the evolutionary development of life from simpler forms to all the variety of later forms! If anybody else (anyone at all, religiously motivated or not) can suddenly produce a whole lot of evidence that would revamp the whole theory in any compelling way that can, using those new understandings, explain what we already see and be a fruitful predictor new findings and new directions for research, then whatâs stopping them? PhDs, honorary degrees, and a permanent place in the history books awaits!
2 Likes
Well, since you brought it upâŚ
I would observe that in forensics, no one a priori rules out intelligent agency or intentional purpose as a possible explanation from before the investigation even begins. ânatural causesâ may indeed be the conclusion of a forensic investigation, but it could also be âintentional murder by person or persons unknown.â forensics follows the evidence wherever it leads, even if it is unable to identify the specific identity of the murderer.
I did not word my statement clearly.
When the ID movement is marketing itself as purely scientific, rather than marketing itself as a Christian apologetic, then it admits that the data that it seeks would not indicate who the designer is. It is true that finding scientific evidence for a designer does not tell who the designer is; the problem is that the ID movement tries to sell itself as purely scientific without regard to theological considerations and as a Christian apologetic, depending on the audience.
Yes, miracles do occur, though me getting a royal flush is rather more likely to result from manipulating cards following the normal laws of physics and not from having supernatural ability to manipulate the cards. If I encounter something that doesnât seem to conform to known natural laws, there are several possibilities, such as:
My grasp of natural laws is inadequate.
Something has happened that did not follow natural laws.
Somebody is trying to mislead me, but in reality events followed natural laws.
There are plenty of false claims of miracles. I encountered a tabloid story with a photo that purported to be of a Brazilian peasant describing how he saw a UFO defy the laws of physics. In addition to the general lack of credibility of the source, I am doubtful that Brazilian peasants have both a sufficient knowledge of physics and suitably advanced measurement technology on hand to actually determine that a UFO was defying physics.
A problem with the ID movement claims to detect design is that they do not adequately consider what can happen ânaturallyâ or not. Suppose we sent a space probe to examine an interstellar interloper (like Oumuamua) and found an old space probe sitting on it, not matching human technology but built of circuits, etc. It would be quite reasonable to conclude that this was the product of some alien civilization. But many ID claims seem to reflect âhow are complex biochemical systems similar to human-made systems?â rather than âwhat are ways in which man-made and natural objects differ?â Information does not require an intelligent agent to generate it. (Theologically, we can recognize that the existence of the information is dependent on God, but information generation does not require any different intelligent agency than a rainstorm or a landslide; every ânaturalâ event generates information.) Complex systems do not require intelligent intervention to create.
Of course, individual judgement on the relative likelihood of mistakes versus deception versus genuine miracles will vary. Unreasonable resistance to any of those options can be found. There are ridiculous attempts to explain biblical miracles as following natural laws (like Elijah actually pouring kerosene, not water, over the altar - over a thousand years before appropriate techniques for distilling kerosene were developed), as well as reasonable ones (landslides sometimes stop the flow of the Jordan, though this does not automatically happen whenever anyone wants to go across - the miracle may be primarily timing rather than in the stopping of the water - an early example of Air Jordan.)
(Again, ânatural lawsâ are the ordinary physical patterns of how creation works and in no way remove God from the picture. Although I reject the deistic idea of winding things up and then just letting them run, scientific study of how things behave while following natural laws can only tell us how things behave while following natural laws - the science does not detect the non-deistic aspect, that depends on theological understanding.).
2 Likes
That is ToE
Natural selection is not about predation, although it is about death.
There is no such thing as a Natural Law. They are human constructs from observation
No they do not. The weather system is fully automated.
The law of thermodynamics needs no input from God. it either is, or is not.
?
How does God guide gravity? It i caused by the mass of the earth!
gravity does not build planets.(that is simplistic) So you think crystaline formation is deliberate art perhaps?
Actually they are not random at all. They are very predictable (Although you would never believe it with the record of weather forcasting)
No offence, but your view of science seems a little naive, and your view of Godâs actions are controlling and manipulative. And as for your view of God in ToE? It is plain evil.
Richard
Edit.
It would appear that you do not distinguish between animate and inanimate systems⌠The difference is life.
No.
Most ignore it because it has no relevance to their work or their interests.
Who are those people?
Almost everyone that Iâm aware of that dismisses ID, myself included, dismiss ID because itâs dishonest garbage peddled by charlatans.
1 Like
It certainly can be denied, because Iâm going to deny it.
The current theory of evolution is not the only option that would fit within my worldview. Lysenkoism and Lamarckism would too, as would panspermia, orthogenesis, spontaneous generation and others.
My acceptance of ToE rather than the others is not because of my worldview, but because ToE matches the available evidence and the others do not. Many atheists Iâve talked to have similar views.
Iâm also going to object to your implicit claim that worldviews are decided on first, and only after that do people look at which theories to accept. Worldviews can, and often are, based on evidence and experience, and change according to those. Itâs not the case that atheism leads to accepting evolution. Itâs more often the case that investigating evolution leads to rejection of religion and a change of worldview.
No. I frequently consider supernatural explanations for phenomena. But Iâve yet to see one that made more sense than any competing non-supernatural explanation, and most of the time not only are the supernatural explanations terrible, but the phenomenon they are attempting to explain doesnât exist.
Acceptance or rejection of ideas isnât based on worldviews - worldviews are built up from acceptance or rejection of ideas. The point that you claim as straightforward and axiomatic is neither. Itâs simply wrong.
I know how I reached my current worldview. You do not. I suggest you stick to explaining your own worldview, and stop telling us what we think. We know that far better than you do.
3 Likes
No, thatâs one form of deism. ToE doesnât mention God, and is about what happens to and within populations, not about what doesnât.
3 Likes
No, it is deism. A deist could hold that the theory of evolution is the best available model or not. A non-deist could also take either belief. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about Godâs involvement, except âwe canât measure it.â
âNatural lawâ is a useful shorthand for âbest available descriptions of the usual way of running things.â
Under your philosophical beliefs, and not under mine.
Unless absolutely everything is being guided by God constantly, in which case, this is irrelevant.
In the same way he guides everything that happens?
Gravity is the primary force that governs how a gas and dust cloud collapses to form stars and planets, so saying that gravity builds planets is as good a description as saying that evolution builds anything. The latter could be true, but is not measurable.
They are basically the definition of one type of being ârandomââgoverned by chaos theory, meaning âPerfectly predictable given perfect measurementsâ (perfect measurements being impossible). Chaos theory was literally discovered because of weather forecasting. Evolutionary pathways are a combination of chaotic random ones and âhumanly impossible to predict because they involve organisms making decisionsâ ones.
2 Likes