But I really DO think that Christian Darwinism is an oxymoron

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 11, 2010

Darwinism, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Something I wrote recently seems to have sparked quite the little discussion. (Dang! Everybody talks to Barry, nobody talks to me … 🙂 )

Briefly, I noted that a friend’s post had been removed from a Christian Darwinist site because the moderator felt that he had intimated that Theodosius Dobzhansky was not a Christian. (He was not a Christian by any reasonable standard.)

How can one tell if a person is a Christian, many wanted to know. Isn’t that just making a judgement (judge not, lest ye be …)?

Barry Arrington made the excellent point that asking the person to affirm the Creed may be setting the bar a little high.

Fair enough: When I have used the Creed that way, I aimed to sort out situations where the person darn well knows what the Creed says and how it may differ from his private convictions. And I had good reasons for asking; otherwise, I wouldn’t bother. I have neither time nor inclination for hunting down heresies. (And none of this is written with prejudice to any other religion. It’s just that salesdarwinists currently target confused Christians more than other confused folk. So, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others, please pardon us Christians as we set the record straight.)

We must say something when someone like Dobzhansky is fronted as a “Christian” to advance the Darwinist cause. I don’t object in principle to other rational criteria for assessing whether someone is a Christian, ones such as Barry offered. The main thing to see here is that a person cannot in good faith believe two doctrines that oppose each other at the most basic level.

Darwinism opposes Christianity in a much more serious way than is generally recognized: The Darwinist must – and usually does – believe that Christianity accidentally evolved amid the noise of neurons and it spread via natural selection.

Thus it was that man created God.

Now, if the Darwinist also believes that Christianity was the result of God’s admittedly spectacular self-revelations (cf the Creed**), then he believes that God created man. Which is it?

More to the point, if the Darwinist also believes that God can do all that the Creed commands* good Christians to believe, he cannot rationally go on to insist that

🙂 man is a part of nature, and Darwin proved it

🙂 God never intervenes in nature, but does it all by Darwinism

So man created God, but no, God created man. Or God created man with the capacity of accidentally evolve an idea of God as an illusion. Why? Because he couldn’t reveal himself?

So yes, I do think Christian Darwinism is an oxymoron, if the Christian Darwinist is unconfused enough to know what he is saying.

It is hardly irrelevant to this discussion that 78% of evolutionary biologists are “pure naturalists” (no God and no free will).

* You cannot become an adult Catholic, so far as I know, without assenting intellectually to the Creed.

**For those for whom the Creed may be a bit challenging, due to age, haste, extreme suffering, emergency, etc., there is also a more basic prayer, the Act of Faith :

O MY GOD, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; I believe that Thy divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.

. Now that is either branch of Christianity or Darwin’s neural noise.

Comments

Althought I am addressing kairosfocus, I would still really enjoy everyone's opinion on the matter of animal capabilities and their relation to humans. Hopefully its a topic that others might find interesting too. I hope I'm not the only crazy one.above_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

@kairosfocus, You are right about the conditioning and the clever hans effect and those were definitely issues that critics of the possibility of animal language have cited as well. Chompsky and Terrace are two of the harshest critics of the possibility of animal language. To my surprise I also found out that pinker too is categorically against it and claims that the research is always exaggerated. If I am not mistaken however, in this particular research there was a double blind. Meaning that the individual giving instructions to the animal was not its trainer, so to try and avoid clever hans effects. Still, that does not disqualify it from being an important factor that may have influenced the animal especially given the fact that both the trainer and the individual giving the command in the experiment are human with common gestures and common subtle cues. At any rate. What herman claims in his research about abstract concepts is that dolphins were shown 2 objects and were then requested to provide a response (for which they were previously trained for) to indicate whether the two objects were the same or different. For example they were shown 2 balls and then “asked” (via some signal) to provide a response indicating how the dolphin perceived the objects. The choices were same and different. They were of course trained to associate stimuli coming from objects with a given behavior that was interpreted as a “yes, they are the same” and another meaning “no, they are not”. Then they were shown new objects that they apparently did not use in previous trials and were asked to do the same. According to the research there is reason to believe from the data that the dolphins were capable in some cases to respond correctly to the stimuli of the two objects and signify that they were same or different. My major point of skepticism on this has to do with several things: 1. How can a dolphin create an abstract concept without language? The claim made by the researcher that a dolphin can understand the difference between same/different sounds very sketchy to me. In my opinion, the best that can be inferred from the research is that the dolphin merely recognizes resemblance between objects and sounds but not the notion of “same”. So basically, there really is no same/different but rather a sensory stimuli that merely resembles another that the dolphin picks up on and thus behaves accordingly to receive its reward, as per its training. 2. I am also very skeptical of terms such as “rational”, “logical” and “abstract concepts” thrown around because they are extremely anthropomorphic. In addition, these abilities in humans are so highly developed in humans that to compare them to some rudimentary behavior seen in animals is very misconstrued if not inapplicable. Also, such potentialities such as reasoning and abstraction in humans have near infinite potentiality in their meaning and application that is so far divorced from animals behavior that I think would be plain silly to even compare in the first place. 3. I have a feeling that there is some underlying word game as usual in such work that attempts to sensationalize and impress readers rather than inform. It’s not really that difficult to redefine words, as herman does in the book ‘Rational Animals?’, to mean something different. Specifically he builds his whole case on the rationality of dolphins on the following definition: “A rational animal is one that can perceive and represent how its world is structured and functions and can make logical inferences and draw conclusions that help it function effectively in that world. It can also incorporate new evidence into its perspective of this world and alter its behavior accordingly to revise its model of the world. “ Isn’t that definition a little too loose? Can we not say that most animals acquire information from their environments and act accordingly? And at which point does an animal make a logical inference? How does the animal make logical inference without the ability to grasp logical truths? To me, the definition he provides is one that deals with an animal’s ability to adapt to new situations rather than one where it has anything to do with rational thought. What do you guys think?above_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

@118 should read, "When all else fails, including putting words into someone’s mouth, simply read what he writes and assume that he means what he says."StephenB_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

"Essentially your argument is that humanity is the pinacle of special creation and that if you don’t believe that, you’re no true Christian. There’ll be no persuading you to see otherwise. Your absolute incapability to grasp Bilbo’s excellent points is clear demonstration." Geez man?!?! How many times can a person say it over and over and you still don't get it? See this word --> GUIDED Now, see this word --> UNGUIDED See the difference in the two? One is different than the other. The difference is the "UN" prefix. It means "NOT GUIDED" whereas the former means just plain ole regular GUIDED. Here is another one: STUCK and UNSTUCK See the difference? Its the "UN" prefix again. It means something like "not". One means that you are STUCK, as in unable to rid yourself of a braincramp and think clearly. The other means you are UNSTUCK and no longer suffering from that particular impediment. Here's some others you can practice on: intended, UNintended planned, UNplanned aided, UNaided arranged, UNarranged ordered, UNordered - - - - - Go head now, give it a try...Upright BiPed_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Above Over many decades there have been all sorts of claims about language capacity and reasoning capacity of many animals. The burden of proof is on the claimers. Dolphins are smart, but the experimenters have a pretty stiff row to hoe, to claim abstract concepts and logic, in the face of issues not only over conditioning but subtle cues from trainers. (Clever Hans effect.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

@Stephen, Kairosfocus and anyone with an interest in the unique nature of human beings -“ A purposeless, mindless, physical process cannot produce human minds or a human wills, nor can it produce a rational goal for those minds and wills to pursue.” First, let me state that I agree with that quote wholeheartedly. Interestingly though, yesterday I run into some research conducted at the dolphin institute, where the head researcher, named Luis Herman claims that dolphins have a sense of rationality. The article can be found in the book ‘Rational Animals?’ on page 439. In another article called “BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS CAN GENERALIZE RULES and DEVELOP ABSTRACT CONCEPTS“ that can be found at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1994.tb00390.x/abstract The researcher claims that dolphins are capable of abstract concepts, a claim that I have never heard made before. I think this ties in well will the idea being discussed here regarding the nature of human beings as rational entities. I am very interested in hearing people’s opinion on the matter and how they interpret such research. Do you guys think that such conclusions from the research are warranted? Do you think they have any impact on how humans are to be perceived? Or does it not matter either way? Thanks in advance and I really look forward in hearing everyone’s opinions. As always, when I come here with a question that I would alike addressed, I find myself leaving with a better understanding thanks to everyone’s insight.above_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

--Prof: Gumby: "Essentially your argument is that humanity is the pinacle of special creation and that if you don’t believe that, you’re no true Christian." No, essentially my argument is that Darwinism, defined by its advocates as unguided evolution, cannot be reconciled with Chrisitanity, which will admit only of guided evolution. When all else fails, including putting words into someone's mouth, simply read what they write and accept the fact that they mean exactly what they say. --"There’ll be no persuading you to see otherwise. Your absolute incapability to grasp Bilbo’s excellent points is clear demonstration." But I do grasp Bilbo's points, and, as I indicated to him, he has not taken into account the source of the evolutionary process. Please absorb this very basic point: If God used the evolutionary process, then God designed the evolutionary process. A process designed by God is not compatible with Darwinism, which is defined as an undesigned process. Christian Darwinists, on the other hand, want to have it both ways, arguing on behalf of an undesigned process while using the rhetoric of design. What is so hard about this?StephenB_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

PS: A 101 survey of problems with wider evolutionary materialism and with [neo]darwinian-style body-plan originating macro-evolution.kairosfocus_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Two things jump out at me from the overnight exchange here: 1: From Bilbo: perhaps He would have said, “That’s exactly what I want,” and gone ahead and used Darwinian evolution. Thus, no surprise for God. No disappointment that Darwinian evolution didn’t get it exactly right. This in effect infers to a sort of simulation run of possible worlds then setting up physically the one that produces the desired result. Apart from the problems that Q-th outcomes apparently cannot be so programmed, this boils down to design by front loading. It would then be "indiscernible" from a Darwinian process of evolutionary origin of life in its diverse forms. A neat way to say that by faith one infers to God as creator while holding to Darwinian mechanisms as the way life took the forms it has. But this has the immediate problem that the darwinian mechanism is -- empirically -- simply incapable of the task in hand. That is we are accommodating a bad scientific theory. It is also precisely the sort of heresy against Darwin that hopes to be allowed on sufferance that I mentioned above. Further to this, it invites the materialist rebuttal that the invisible, untraceable gardener is an imaginary one. An objection that is in fact longstanding. (Far better is to note the evidence of design of the cosmos, of life and of its diversity, also to address what is the source of credible mind and conscience.) 2: From Prof Gumbo: your argument is that humanity is the pinacle of special creation and that if you don’t believe that, you’re no true Christian. There’ll be no persuading you to see otherwise. Let us notice: this is a theological objection, not a scientific one. So, we need to address primary sources of Christian theology. Now, in Heb 2 we may read an excerpt from the 8th Psalm:
5 Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. 6 It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? 7 ????????You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,1 8 ????????putting everything in subjection under his feet.”
Here, we see the paradox of the incarnation, a stooping to exalt. There is no biblkical inference that humanity is the pinnacle of creation, nor will we find such a claim above. What we do find is something else: God has specifically made man in his image [to the point where by direct implication of Jas 3:9 to mistreat or disrespect another person is to disrespect God], endowed him with mind and conscience, and set him in a world such that:
Rom 1:19 . . . what can be known about God is plain to [men], because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse . . . . Rom 2:14 . . . whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, 16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.
That is, the world without is stamped with signs of its Creation by a Divine Author. And, as we reflect on our own rationality and conscience, we see that the stamp of God's image is borne by us within. Thus, to turn from God in resentful ingratitude and willful ignorance is inexcusable. These are not obscure, little known, hard to understand texts; they are pretty plain in import and are central to Christology and to the bad news first -- why we need salvation -- part of the main detailed theological exposition of the gospel in the Bible. The second in particular happens to be an empirical test point for the biblical world view. If there is not an evident design of the world without, and there is not a consistent stamping in of the core principles of reasoning and morality on the mind and conscience, then the foundations of the Biblical theology of man would collapse. Of course, it is a commonplace that there is a consistent core of morality, especially when we are at stake or those we care about: neighbour love and fairness. (When we are immoral, we are as a rule seeking self-serving "exceptions" to principles we expect others to respect in treating us.) Similarly, despite the objections of hose who try to reject first principles of right reason, even language itself shows how central the preservation of identity, non-confusion of things and their opposites, and the distinction between the two are to our thought. Paul of Tarsus put this aptly:
1 Cor 14: 7 It is similar for lifeless things that make a sound, like a flute or harp. Unless they make a distinction in the notes, how can what is played on the flute or harp be understood? 8 If, for example, the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 It is the same for you. If you do not speak clearly with your tongue, how will anyone know what is being said?
These things are very familiar, so familiar that we may miss their significance. Likewise, both to the people of old gazing into the glory of the heavens, and to the modern scientist examining the finely balanced operating point of the cosmos that facilitates the existence of C-chemistry cell based life, the heavens declare the glory of God. Life is so chock-full of evidence of design that Dawkins has had to make a telling admission in his very terms: designoid. That is he hopes to blunt the inference from the complex, functional organisation of life to the empirically best supported explanation of such complex funcitonal organisation and associated information, design. But, his mechanisms, chance and necessity simply cannot credibly account for the functionally specific complex information and especially the code-bearing algorithm-effecting digital information systems that are at the heart of the cell's operations. And that holds whatever one's views on the timelines of creation, or the specific mechanisms used. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 17, 2010
December
12
Dec
17
17
2010
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

I'd thought to take the time this morning to write a considered response to some of the arguments SB and KF have been making. Now that I see the last few comments, I don't think I'll bother. Essentially your argument is that humanity is the pinacle of special creation and that if you don't believe that, you're no true Christian. There'll be no persuading you to see otherwise. Your absolute incapability to grasp Bilbo's excellent points is clear demonstration.Prof. FX Gumby_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Bilbo, thanks for your comments. You write: ---“Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I get this sense that you believe that if God had used Darwinian evolution in order to get a desired outcome, then He would have been surprised by the outcome and it wouldn’t have been exactly what He wanted.” ??????????? Since I have been arguing the opposite position, it is safe to say that you are getting the wrong sense. If God could be surprised by the outcome, then God would be neither omnipotent (unable to get the result he wants) nor omniscient (unable to know the future). I am baffled that you could misunderstand me so completely. Indeed, you were the one who objected to my insistence that God achieved the exact outcome that he intended, which would certainly rule out any possibility that he would be surprised by that same outcome. ---“Since God knows the future as well as He knows the present, then before He created the universe, He would have known exactly what Darwinian evolution would have produced.” There is a gaping whole in your comment. Who or what is the source of this “Darwinian” evolution? If God is needed to program it then it cannot be a Darwinian process, which, by definition, doesn’t need God’s program. Either God is needed to set up/direct the process {Christianity, teleology} or else God is not needed to set up/direct the process {Darwinism, non telelogy}. Of course, we also have the schizophrenic position of Christian Darwinism: God is needed, except that he isn’t. ---“And perhaps He would have said, “That’s exactly what I want,” and gone ahead and used Darwinian evolution. Thus, no surprise for God. No disappointment that Darwinian evolution didn’t get it exactly right. ??????? Obviously, an omnipotent God will not be surprised by the outcome of the process that He designed. God may well use naturalistic processes that involve Darwinistic components, such as Random Variation and Natural Selection, but those processes, by virtue of the fact that they are being used, have been designed to produce the desired outcome. By contrast, Darwinism holds that Random Variation and Natural Selection can do the job all by themselves—no design needed—no direction needed—no God needed. Of course, we also have Christian Darwinism, which holds that God designed a process which, as it turns out, doesn’t really need a designer after all. You heard that right. ---“Now we may object that Darwinian evolution wouldn’t have produced much, if anything, and certainly not us human beings. And perhaps we are correct.” Again, you are ignoring the source of the process. If God is using the process, then God designed the process he is using. Darwinism, on the other hand, refers to a process that doesn’t need to be used in order to produce the desired results. ---““ On that all of us Christians are in agreement. What method did He use? On that we hold differing opinions. Let’s discuss and debate those opinions. But please, let’s refrain from calling each other heretics.” I have never called anyone a heretic, although another blogger called me a heretic. What I did say is that Christian Darwinists are irrational, and so they are. Without shame, they argue that a purposeful, mindful God used a purposeless mindless process to create an outcome that may or may not have been His intention. It doesn’t get any more irrational than that. Why not just accept the obvious point? IF EVOLUTION OCCURED, God designed the process to produce a specific result. Why identify with those who say that God designed the process, except that he didn’t.StephenB_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
There should be no doubt among Christians that God created humans exactly as he wanted them, with no allowable variations.
So where do our sinful natures fit in? Are we (and by 'we' I mean all of us; not just the first two) created exactly as he wanted us, or is our sin nature an 'allowable variation'?jurassicmac_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I asked this earlier, but it got stuck in moderation so I didn't know if you'd catch it: If I were to decide to throw a handful of dice onto the floor, would God know beforehand what numbers the dice would land on, or would the roll be random?jurassicmac_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Hi Stephen, Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I get this sense that you believe that if God had used Darwinian evolution in order to get a desired outcome, then He would have been surprised by the outcome and it wouldn't have been exactly what He wanted. If my view of your thoughts on this are correct, then I think you have it a little backwards. Since God knows the future as well as He knows the present, then before He created the universe, He would have known exactly what Darwinian evolution would have produced. And perhaps He would have said, "That's exactly what I want," and gone ahead and used Darwinian evolution. Thus, no surprise for God. No disappointment that Darwinian evolution didn't get it exactly right. Now we may object that Darwinian evolution wouldn't have produced much, if anything, and certainly not us human beings. And perhaps we are correct. But Darwinists (whether they are Christian or not) would disagree with us. And that is where I think the real debate should be. NOT on who holds the correct theological view. I disagree with Christian Darwinists who think ID is bad theology. And I disagree with Christians who think Darwinism is bad theology. God created the universe and everything in it. On that all of us Christians are in agreement. What method did He use? On that we hold differing opinions. Let's discuss and debate those opinions. But please, let's refrain from calling each other heretics.Bilbo I_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

There should be no doubt among Christians that God created humans exactly as he wanted them, with no allowable variations. Made for a definite end, “in His image,” and capable of rational and willful action in order to pursue that end, God would not allow for any other set of combinations and permutations. I don’t hesitate to say this boldly, or to insist that God would not permit any other outcome. Would God have permitted contingency to provide for the body and leave out the soul? Of course not. Would He have formed a soul with an intellect but without a will? Not if he planned to hold man accountable for the misuse of that will. He formed homo sapiens with the same exactitude that He formed angels—exactly as he wanted them. From the Universal Catechism: “What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.” God created everything for man. Is it conceivable that He would have allowed man to form in such a way that the remainder of His creation was no longer appropriate for him? Of course not. Contingency comes into play only after man, endowed with free will and made in God’s image, assumes the role of a causal agent, which explains the arrival of sin in the world as well as the infinite variety of possibilities with respect to who will be born, or, for that matter, who will be aborted. . None of this can be reconciled with Darwinism. A purposeless, mindless, physical process cannot produce human minds or a human wills, nor can it produce a rational goal for those minds and wills to pursue. Such a scenario is not simply improbable. It is both impossible and illogical. Darwinism is completely incompatible with Christianity.StephenB_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

PS: The heresy in question is in the eyes of the canonical, evolutionary materialistic Darwinists.kairosfocus_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Prof Gumby: I observe your:
104: You’re simply interpreting a particular part of the Bible as you like and requiring all “true” Christians to believe in it . . . . Furthermore, you and KF are relying again on loose generalities and general tendencies of Christianity and “Darwinism” to set them unnecessarily at odds.Furthermore, you and KF are relying again on loose generalities and general tendencies of Christianity and “Darwinism” to set them unnecessarily at odds.
1 --> I note here that Jude 3 tells us: " 3 Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you1 about our common salvation, I now feel compelled2 instead to write to encourage3 you to contend earnestly4 for the faith5 that was once for all6 entrusted to the saints." 2 --> We don't get to define the faith, it is specified on the apostolic deposit. 3 --> And a key summary of that is found in 1 Cor 15, the AD 55 summary of the official apostolic testimony, c, 35 - 38 AD:
1 Now I want to make clear for you,1 brothers and sisters,2 the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. 3 For I passed on to you as of first importance1 what I also received – that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures,note 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive . . . . 11 Whether then it was I or they, this is the way we preach and this is the way you believed.
4 --> Now, what is sin? What is a Christ? What scriptures and what prophecy, by what God? 5 --> Thus, we see the centrality of the creational perspective that is in the Biblical context. Nor is this a matter of picking and choosing texts arbitrarily or out of context, this is central and consistent. 6 --> As I already documented and as is notorious, canonical Darwinism was intended form the outset to capture the cultural credibility of science for "free thought," and so was intended to put God out of a job. 7 --> That is why, as it came to prominence, it decisively contributed to the rise of atheism. Facts, already documented and easily accessible. 8 --> There was an accomodationist movement from the C19 on, that sought to integrate evolutionary and theistic thought. (Indeed, many of the original early C20 fundamentalists were of this ilk.) 9 --> However, in recent decades, it faces the stringent emphasis on the chance + necessity, evolutionary materialistic view that is emphasised by those who dominate the academy. (As any number of cases up to and including the way Francis Collins was viewed when he stood for a Govt post, will testify.) 10 --> So, as I stated above, it is possible for a Christian to be a Darwinist in some fashion, but not one in line with the canonical form and the form that dominates the academy. Such are tolerated for the moment at sufferance, not of right. 11 --> When it comes to purposefulness and creation, this is what is crystal clear:
Isa 45: 12 ???????I made the earth, I created the people who live on it. It was me – my hands stretched out the sky, I give orders to all the heavenly lights . . . . 18 ???????For this is what the LORD says, the one who created the sky – he is the true God, the one who formed the earth and made it; he established it, he did not create it without order, he formed it to be inhabited – “I am the LORD, I have no peer.
12 --> Nor is this an obscure text, it is in fact the passage that is the basis for the creedal hymn in Phil 2:5 - 11. 13 --> God is in charge of creation, and is deeply purposefully and directly involved in creation. Creation that manifests all sorts of signs of just such purpose save to those disinclined to see such. 14 --> As such, while God can use random processes as a part of the design, such contextualised and constrained randomness or laws exist in a framework that is designed and manifests strong empirical signs of design. 15 --> So, the Darwinian mechanism is empirically challenged to account for especially body plan level diversity entailing digital information systems and data. However, it dominates the academy and insists that no reference to any shadow of purpose may be permitted. 16 --> Those are the matches Christian -- thus, "heretic" -- Darwinists are playing with. ________________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

--ilion: "So, you’re asserting that all organisms – all God’s creatures — are utter automatons? You’re asserting that Christianity, which asserts freedom in its metaphysics, somehow requires the denial of freedom in what it says about the physical world and creatures in the world." No, I am not making that argument, but I have decided to abandon the Scriptural reference I have been using since it can be misleading. I am arguing that God allowed for only one outcome until man arrived, and after that, free will became a factor which does, of course, allow for many outcomes.StephenB_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

---Prof: Gumby: "You’ve failed to make a case that your definition of Christianityis better than relying on the Apostle’s Creed." I am not providing a comprehensive definition of Christianity's legitimate response to Darwinism, rather I am providing a definition of Christianity's response to Darwinian evolution, as I have pointed out many times. What is your definition of Christianity's response to the proposition that we arrived here by way of a purposeless, mindless, process? ---"You’re simply interpreting a particular part of the Bible as you like and requiring all “true” Christians to believe in it. No thanks." OK. I will drop that Scriptural reference. I wrote: "Thank you again for acknowledging that you believe that God did not intend the final result and that he was prepared to adjust to any eventuality no matter how alien to his original intent." ---"I never said the final result was not his original intent." To tell me what you were not saying is not to tell me what you were saying. Either the finished result was his exact intent or it was not. I am not, by the way, arguing that God's original and exact intentions were all carried out AFTER man arrived, which is another good reason that I decided to abandon the Scriptural passage that I have been using. What is at stake is the process by which God created man just as He intended. Was it with or without purpose? ---"How do you know what it was? Please let me know what sort of a lens you’re using to look into God’s mind." I didn't say that I knew his intention. I am saying that HE knew his intention and would not settle for anything less, at least until man arrived. --"Furthermore, you and KF are relying again on loose generalities and general tendencies of Christianity and “Darwinism” to set them unnecessarily at odds." Tell me how to reconcile a purposeless, mindless process with a purposeful, mindful, creation. -- "It’s strange as one of you was just complaining about defining terms and the other is always complaining about strawmen." I don't know what that means.StephenB_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

---ilion: "The incompatibility of the two is rooted in the fact that one affirms agency/freedom and one denies it." That is only one of many aspects of the incompatibility. Another is the ridiculous prospect of purposeless, mindless, process producing a purposeful, mindful, outcome. I could list a number of others. Are you suggesting that the irony you perceive is the only irony that exists? ---"So, you’re asserting that all organisms – all God’s creatures — are utter automatons?" No, I am not asserting that. I have already explicitly stated that I believe in free will. As I wrote to Bilbo, "As God’s rational creatures, we certainly possess the gift of free will. While we can do nothing without God’s sustaining power, we can, nevertheless, do things as causal agents in our own right. The elements have no choice, meaning they must follow the laws of nature, but we may choose not to follow God’s moral laws. "I don’t think any of this challenges God’s sovereignty. Indeed, as Norman Geisler Points out, God “sovereignly delegated free choice to some of his creatures.” So, human freedom is a sovereignly given power to make moral choices. Only absolute freedom would be contrary to God’s sovereign power." Do my own words mean nothing? I am, however, open to the argument that God did not get exactly the result he wanted from his creative act. If someone would care to make the case, I will read it and study it with rapture. Even those who agree with me on most other matters are free to weigh in on this and provide fraternal correction if it is needed. Perhaps God did not mean what he said ["I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb."] Perhaps he meant, "Knowing that some creature or biological organism, something remotely like you, would be a part of the final outcome, I was content to love that dim adumbration of a mystery, and that is good enough for me." Perhaps he meant, "If, as it turns out, you do not arrive as a blue-eyed human, but rather as a long-neck giraffe, I will make the necessary adjustments and infuse rationality into all the giraffes and save them, long necks and all." I am open to any argument at all from anyone who will take the trouble to make their case, which, I hasten to add, is not the same thing as trying to find holes in mine. ---"So, you’re asserting that Darwinism, which is explicitly mechanically deterministic in its metaphysics, somehow allows for creaturely freedom — except, of course, for the awkwardness that Darwinism asserts that there are no creatures, but only organisms." Again, I am asserting what I am asserting, expressed by my words as they appear in my sentences. Darwinism, which is a purposeless, mindless, process will, as its advocates insist, produce a different result every time. I agree that their scientific claims would seem to conflict with their materialistic metaphysics, but you will have to take up that difficulty with them. Darwinists, and Christian Darwinists, seem to contradict themselves with every other word. Meanwhile, I provided a number of quotes from Darwinists to make mypoint. Did you miss those quotes? What is your response to them? Perhaps you can provide quotes from Darwinists who claim that unguided, undirected, purposeless, mindless, evolution can produced only one result. Would you care to take up that challenge? I am open to your point of view if you [or anyone else] can defend it, and I am not too proud to say that I was wrong. Go for it.StephenB_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Bilbo I (#97): I'd like to comment on your excellent question, which you put to StephenB:
There is a further problem. I think both of us believe in free will. That means it was possible that our parents never chose to have sex with each other and produce us. According to you, this possibility would be inconsistent with God’s intent that we both exist. How exactly do you reconcile that? And how would it be different than how a Christian Darwinist would reconcile things?
I'd like to sharpen your question, by focusing on an even more difficult case: the case of a child sinfully conceived outside marriage. All of us have ancestors who were conceived in this way, so this is a question that applies to everyone. For if God did not intend the coming-into-being of one of my ancestors, without whom I would not be here, then He did not intend my coming-into-being either. I would say that since illegitimate human offspring result from human sin, it follows that they cannot be part of God's original plan for the cosmos. They can only be part of God's backup plan (or Plan B) for the cosmos, in the event of a human agent choosing to commit a sinful sexual act: God does not intend that the agent commit the sinful act, but He nevertheless allows this act to generate a new human life. However, God loves this new human being unconditionally, even though his or her coming-into-existence was not part of God's original plan. "But what about Jeremiah 1:5 - 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you?'" I hear you ask. Two comments: (1) The fact that God intended Jeremiah's coming-into-being does not entail that his existence was part of God's original plan for the cosmos. We know that Jeremiah was sent as a prophet to a sinful people. Had they not been sinful, there would have been no reason for God to send Jeremiah, and hence no special reason for him to exist. Thus I would see Jeremiah as part of God's back-up plan. (2) The fact that Jeremiah's existence was willed by God even before his conception - I am using the word "before" in a logical rather than a temporal sense here - does not mean that my existence is willed by God in the same fashion. Jeremiah was a special case: a prophet sent by God, a man with a mission. This mission was his principal raison d'etre as a human being, and hence part-and-parcel of Jeremiah's very identity. My mission in life, whatever it may be, is not part-and-parcel of my very identity, as Jeremiah's was. My identity as a human individual is determined simply by virtue of my having the parents I had, as well as the fact that my body was formed from this sperm and this egg of theirs. (Had it been a different sperm and egg, then "I" wouldn't have been "me.") Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an important dis-analogy between the coming-into-existence of a human being and the coming-into-existence of the various life-forms we see on Earth. The life-forms we see on Earth are part of God's original plan for the cosmos. In my reply to Professor F. X. Gumby in #93, I quoted the words of St. Augustine (De Civitate Dei v, 11): "Not only heaven and earth, not only man and angel, even the bowels of the lowest animal, even the wing of the bird, the flower of the plant, the leaf of the tree, hath God endowed with every fitting detail of their nature." Aquinas endorsed those same words. The faith of the Christian Church has always been that the various kinds of living things we see on Earth were planned by God. They are part of God's original design; we as individuals are not. At this point, you may have a few difficult theological questions of your own: what about malaria, for instance? Did God plan that? Good question. I address this issue at further length in http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/thomas2.html . (See especially sections 4 to 7.)vjtorley_{December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

SB, You've failed to make a case that your definition of Christianityis better than relying on the Apostle's Creed. You're simply interpreting a particular part of the Bible as you like and requiring all "true" Christians to believe in it. No thanks.
Thank you again for acknowledging that you believe that God did not intend the final result and that he was prepared to adjust to any eventuality no matter how alien to his original intent
I never said the final result was not his original intent. How do you know what it was? Please let me know what sort of a lens you're using to look into God's mind. Furthermore, you and KF are relying again on loose generalities and general tendencies of Christianity and "Darwinism" to set them unnecessarily at odds. It's strange as one of you was just complaining about defining terms and the other is always complaining about strawmen.Prof. FX Gumby_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

Still it is a human construct and an exclusive club that decides who is Christian. The gnostics, who I regard as the truest Christians, did not believe in a bodily resurrection. I am not even sure what "Jesus is Lord" actually means. Whether or not I am a Christian is less important than this: I am a follower of Jesus. I doubt the trinity truly contains 3 persons, for then we are not monotheists. I do not know and cannot know how Jesus was conceived, whether he rose from the dead and whether such resurrection was bodily. All these things detract from his mission as I see it: To reconcile the hearts of men with God and to show us the goodness of God so that men might admire and love this God; to have the Holy Spirit assist us in a personal transformation so that we would learn love and compassion, forgiveness and honesty, enabling us to live in heaven. Those are the things of real importance.avocationist_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB: “… Thus, assuming evolution is true, and it may not be, the Christian world view of the evolutionary process is incompatible with the Darwinist world view of the evolutionary process because the former will admit of only one outcome while the latter will admit of any outcome at all” Ilíon: Not at all, backwards, in fact. A Christian view of “evolution” allows for multiple potential histories of the world within the broad outline set down by God; a Darwinistic (which is to say, anti-theistic) view of “evolution” is mechanically deterministic, and thuse allows for only one outcome. The incompatibility of the two is rooted in the fact that one affirms agency/freedom and one denies it.
StephenB: “Incorrect. You have it backwards. A Christian world view of evolution requires that God directed the process to a specific end. ["I knew you before you were in your mother's womb"] God is the Creator and the Creator gets exactly the result he wants and only the result he wants.”
So, you're asserting that all organisms – all God’s creatures -- are utter automatons? You’re asserting that Christianity, which asserts freedom in its metaphysics, somehow requires the denial of freedom in what it says about the physical world and creatures in the world.
StephenB: “Incorrect again. A Darwinist view allows for an almost infinite variety of outcomes. A purposeless, mindless process will produce a different result every time. Random variation does not know where it is going and is liable to end up anywhere.”
So, you’re asserting that Darwinism, which is explicitly mechanically deterministic in its metaphysics, somehow allows for creaturely freedom -- except, of course, for the awkwardness that Darwinism asserts that there are no creatures, but only organisms.Ilion_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

Bilbo, I am disturbed because I think the REAL Bilbo would have long seen through Sauron's madness. Obviously, you are not him. :-) You say: "I still didn’t see a logical contradiction between God creating and using a Darwinian process." I HAVE to be missing something. Darwinian process = God not doing anything. Unless you call the random effects of physical laws and sub-atomic particles "doing something." But even if you say that, it is still impossible for physics to explain life (see above). So how is that not a logical contradiction to God creating?tgpeeler_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I've got a question for you. If I were to decide to throw a handful of dice onto the floor, would God know beforehand what numbers the dice would land on, or would the roll be random?jurassicmac_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Greetings Bilbo: You wrote: --"I agree with you that if God had a specific outcome in mind, then a random proc…er, a random series of events would be incredibly unlikely to produce that outcome. So that if someone believed that God used such a series of events, then even though they hadn’t committed a logical contradiction, they were being irrational. What isn’t clear to me is that God must have had a specific outcome in mind." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that, while it is virtually impossible for Darwinistic processes to produce the exact, none-other-will-do-kind of result, there is no reason to believe that God would demand that kind of precision. I answer that if God doesn’t achieve that much precision, then the end result will be different from the one he had I mind. You, I, and every other human that has ever lived, lives now, or will ever live, must conform exactly to the image God had in mind even before the process began. That means that no other manifestation or variation will do. Every detail, every trait, every physical characteristic must be in place for every human. Is there not only result that could serve this purpose? This brings us to my Biblical quote, “I knew you before you were in your mother’s womb.” Here, God is speaking about every human that ever lived, all of which are products of his creative process. ---“But this could be compatible with God using a Darwinian process. God would foreknow what the outcome of the process was and therefore know everyone who was going to be born.” The point about how much precision God demands of the end result is an altogether different issue than the question of whether Darwinian processes could achieve it. In any case, I think we have already agreed that it is not reasonable to think that God could get that kind of precision using Darwinian processes. That only issue in question, if I understand you correctly, is whether or not God demands that much precision from his own process. I submit that an omnipotent God need not or would not accept an outcome that varies with his original intent in any way. Why should He? ---“There is a further problem. I think both of us believe in free will. That means it was possible that our parents never chose to have sex with each other and produce us. According to you, this possibility would be inconsistent with God’s intent that we both exist. How exactly do you reconcile that? And how would it be different than how a Christian Darwinist would reconcile things?” As God’s rational creatures, we certainly possess the gift of free will. While we can do nothing without God’s sustaining power, we can, nevertheless, do things as causal agents in our own right. The elements have no choice, meaning they must follow the laws of nature, but we may choose not to follow God’s moral laws. I don’t think any of this challenges God’s sovereignty. Indeed, as Norman Geisler Points out, God “sovereignly delegated free choice to some of his creatures.” So, human freedom is a sovereignly given power to make moral choices. Only absolute freedom would be contrary to God’s sovereign power. With respect to Christian Darwinists, they typically “reconcile” things by subordinating their faith to their Darwinism. If the two world views were compatible, they would not need to make all those concessions—and make them they do.StephenB_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

vjTorley, I still didn't see a logical contradiction between God creating and using a Darwinian process. What you seemed to show is that it would be very improbable to get a desired result with a Darwinian process. This seems to depend upon evidence that things like the origin of life and the evolution of intelligent (not necessarily rational) animal life are extremely improbable. I agree with you about the evidence. But a Christian Darwinist probably wouldn't. Further, I agree with you that mere physical life couldn't result in rational minds. But I'm not sure that God couldn't have endowed physical existence with emergent mental properties, so that when it reached a certain biological level of organization and complexity, rationality would emerge. In other words, though I tend to favor substance dualism, I'm not sure we can rule out other explanations of mind.Bilbo I_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Whoops. Forgot to close .Bilbo I_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Hi Stephen, I agree with you that if God had a specific outcome in mind, then a random proc...er, a random series of events would be incredibly unlikely to produce that outcome. So that if someone believed that God used such a series of events, then even though they hadn't committed a logical contradiction, they were being irrational. What isn't clear to me is that God must have had a specific outcome in mind. Your prooftext is the verse, “I knew you before you were in your mother’s womb.” But this could be compatible with God using a Darwinian process. God would foreknow what the outcome of the process was and therefore know everyone who was going to be born. We need stronger evidence that God wanted only this world. There is a further problem. I think both of us believe in free will. That means it was possible that our parents never chose to have sex with each other and produce us. According to you, this possibility would be inconsistent with God's intent that we both exist. How exactly do you reconcile that? And how would it be different than how a Christian Darwinist would reconcile things?Bilbo I_{December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply