Asks Wintery Knight: Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?
| April 23, 2018 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, theistic evolution |
Here is the PR / spin definition of theistic evolution:
Evolutionary creation is “the view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.” This view, also called theistic evolution, has been around since the late nineteenth century, and BioLogos promotes it today in a variety of religious and educational settings.
And here is the no-spin definition of theistic evolution:
As Dr. Stephen Meyer explains it, the central issue dividing Bio-Logos writers from intelligent design theorists is BioLogos’s commitment to methodological naturalism (MN), which is not a scientific theory or empirical finding, but an arbitrary rule excluding non-material causation from the outset. “Unfortunately,” Meyer writes, methodological naturalism is a demanding doctrine. The rule does not say “try finding a materialistic cause but keep intelligent design in the mix of live possibilities, in light of what the evidence might show.” Rather, MN tells you that you simply must posit a material or physical cause, whatever the evidence.
What this means, according to BioLogos’s own epistemology, is that God is objectively undiscoverable and unknowable—a tenet that sits squarely at odds with Christian orthodoxy, which has for centuries held that God is clearly discernible in the natural world (e.g., Romans 1:20).
…
And for the record, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the standard Big Bang cosmology, and a 4.5 billion year Earth. My problem with evolution is not Bible-based, it’s science-based. If the science shows the need for intelligent causes, and I think it does, then I think that the naturalists need to adjust their assumptions and pre-suppositions to match the evidence. We have blog posts and computer science code, that’s evidence for a programmer. We have DNA and proteins and sudden origin of body plans, that’s evidence for a programmer, too. More.
We hope no one deludes himself that, in a contest of this type, orthodoxy is going to prevail.
File under: Church closers.
See also: Tyler O’Neil: Three views on origins supported by the text of the Bible
and
Faith and Science — the Confused View of the United Methodist Church
131 Responses to Asks Wintery Knight: Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?”
Thousands do.
Allan Keith,
Just because they can’t see how illogical Darwinism is. And they fight tooth and nail when someone wants to open their eyes.
Nonlin,
Who’s to say that it is their eyes that need opening? After all, TE is within the ID tent.
Can we both agree that all sides of an argument have some individuals who make the arguments emotional as opposed to rational?
WK cites Stephen Meyer’s comments that TE of the Biologos variety requires strict adherence to methodological naturalism (MN). There is nothing about science or scientific discovery that requires MN. MN is little more than full blown philosophical naturalism (PN) in disguise. I’ve said many times over the years that MN=PN and there is no getting around it. The enforcement of MN in science is arbitrary and not itself based on any actual discoveries in the natural world. It is by definition a philosophical presupposition born from PN. It presupposes that all observations in nature are explainable by natural cause and effect. This is completely arbitrary. If the evidence of nature points in the direction of actual design, then scientists ought to be free to explore that and offer intelligent cause as a viable option. MN arbitrarily tosses that out before investigation even begins. That is NOT science, but philosophy masquerading as science.
I have a very jaundiced view of TE so sensitive readers should not read any further.
I am convinced that:
1. There is no possible reconciliation between the Christian God and Evolution.
2. People who try to reconcile them merely demonstrate that they understand neither. Evolution requires aeons of death, disease and dismemberment. The TE-ers Christian God calls this “very good” and then goes on to lie about how and why death came into the world.
I will go further and say that the craving for the intellectual respect of one’s enemies is a fatal flaw. Proponents of Theistic Evolution are viewed with suspicion (at best, more usually as heretics) by their Christian fellows, and with derision by their evolutionist fellows.
And rightly so, because they’ve subjugated their intellect and principles to their desire for in-group acceptance, a flaw that renders them fundamentally unreliable as allies or worshippers.
scuzzaman, you write,
This is usually a young-earth position. Do you feel the same way about old earth creationists or old earth ID supporters?
“Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?”
Only if you deny the obvious:
Thank you for your honesty Will Provine.
1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †
2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †
3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †
4- No Free Will (1999) p.123
5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.
Allan:
You would think so, however TE’s deny that we can detect intelligent design so that puts them on the outside.
Allan –
Regarding TE, the question as posed was whether someone can believe in God and *Darwinism*. The answer that TEs are within ID is true but misleading. If by TE you mean Darwinists, then no, TE is not within ID. If by TE you mean people who accept common descent but reject RM+NS as the operative agent for change, then yes, but that has nothing to do with this post, which is about whether it is compatible with Darwinism.
For the record, I do believe that Darwinism is compatible in general with theism (though it fits more comfortably with deism), but, while many Christians accept it, I don’t think it logically mixes well with Christianity specifically.
Johnnyb
Granting evolution for the sake of argument, how do you reconcile undirected Darwinian evolution with a theistic model that requires direction?
The question is “Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?”
This question is ambiguous because of the different meanings people attach to the adjective “Darwinian”. Among IDists and others, Darwinian has come to mean a metaphysical interpretation of evolution that is atheistic and materialistic. Of course, they can find quotes from notable advocates for evolution that do see evolution from an atheistic and materialistic perspective.
But others see evolution from a different metaphysical perspective, so just quoting the materialists is in itself not an argument.
Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution are commonly called theistic evolutionists (TEs), although that term is also misleading and open to different interpretations. Most importantly, I think that various descriptions of what TE means, especially among people who object to it, are not accurate, or at least don’t accurately express the meaning of TE held by knowledgeable TEs that I know.
Drawing on a recent post in a previous thread, let me explain.
===========
TE is not just about evolution: that is why the term is misleading. TE is a much broader position about God’s presence in the world. It is the theological belief that everything, from the daily events and overall course of our personals lives to the largest-scale history of the universe, is caused and upheld by God’s presence in all the natural events that we see around us.
Many a Christian has invoked this belief when they have avoided a catastrophic event (perhaps missed a plane that later crashed), and stated that it was God’s will, and part of God’s plan for them, that they miss that plane and live rather than catch the plane and die.
And yet, if we examine the course of events leading up to missing the plane (perhaps an alarm clock broke, or a wreck disrupted traffic), we as human beings would see nothing but naturally-caused events.
We do not, and cannot, see the world as God sees it. We are embedded in time and space, with abilities to see the world limited by our five senses and their extensions via various instruments. The ways in which an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God manifests his will comprehensively and simultaneously on all events at each moments is vastly beyond our comprehension, which is limited to experiencing causally connected events in time and space.
Furthermore, what appears as chance to us is not chance to God. Again, because of the limitations of our human experience, we see contingency in which events that have no discernable causal connection to us nevertheless have major consequences in the world, such as the missed plane mentioned above.
This is a theological perspective that applies to all og our understanding of the natural world. It is not a special consideration about evolution, but rather a perspective about evolution flowing from a broader understanding about all events in the natural world.
To the TE, what happens via natural causes, every single moment, is a manifestation of God’s presence. Just because something has a natural cause, and perhaps includes elements that appear as chance to us, doesn’t mean that God is not involved.
It’s not that the world isn’t designed: it’s that there is no distinction separating the design of some special things from the rest of the world’s events.
This is my understanding of TE.
=========
And at the same thread, I wrote,
==========
Some additional thoughts.
I think people can be, and TEs are, adherents to methodological naturalism (MN) without being adherents of philosophical natural (PN). MN does not equal PN. Obviously all PNs endorse MN, but not all MN’s must be, either directly or indirectly, PNs.
MN is a considered decision to have one field of knowledge, science, limited in the types of questions it can investigate and the kind of explanations it will consider. It is not mandated by any particular metaphysics, but is recognized as a practically successful limitation that helps separate science from other types of knowledge and belief. It recognizes that many topics are outside the reach of science, including metaphysical interpretations about natural causation.
So TEs can endorse and work within the limits of MN while doing science, or taking a naturalistic view of the world in more informal settings, and at the same time embrace their religious views about the presence of God and the pervasive manifestation of his will. Things have happened as they have because that is how God willed them to happen, manifesting that will through the continual flow of what appear to us as natural events following natural laws and processes.
Please note: I know many of you reject many of the statements have made here. My main interest is in perhaps more accurately trying to describe what the TE position is. TEs hold a valid Christian perspective: they are not sell-outs to materialism. The arguments between TEs and Christian IDists are theological, within Christianity, not a matter of arguing who is or is not a CHristian.
My 2 cents.
Jack’s 2 cents isn’t worth anything. I say he owes me money for slogging through that crap.
There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution, Jack. That is the whole problem.
There isn’t any room for God if evolutionism is true. There isn’t any need.
Methodological Naturalism is self refuting.
Many scientists, including many scientists who personally believe in God, erroneously believe that methodological naturalism is the required assumption for doing science:
In fact, the judge in the Dover case, who ruled against Intelligent Design being taught in schools, concluded that “Methodological naturalism is a ‘ground rule’ of science today”
Yet, contrary to what many people believe, “Methodological naturalism is certainly NOT a ‘ground rule’ of science today”.
As Karl Popper clearly illustrated, the one overriding ground rule in science. that clearly demarcates whether a theory is scientific or not. is whether the theory is falsifiable or not. In fact Popper said, “I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical.,,, is liable to turn into a dogma”
Besides methodological naturalism ignoring falsifiability as the primary criteria, i.e. ‘ground rule’, for doing science, the main flaw with presupposing methodological naturalism as the supposed ‘ground rule’ for all of science is that agent causality is ruled out of bounds as a legitimate scientific explanation right off the bat. As Dr. Paul Nelson noted, methodological naturalism entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor.
Yet, ruling agent causality out of bounds as a legitimate explanation in science leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science:
Although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science with methodological naturalism, the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor of reality to grab on to:
In short, Darwinists have, in their rejection of agent causality in favor of naturalism, lost any coherent basis for reality itself.
Moreover, if anything, we understand Agent causality far better than we understand mechanical causality:
It seems clear to me that Darwinian evolution is atheistic at its core. Thus I find it difficult to think that a person can believe in both God and Darwinian evolution.
re 14: did you happen to read my post (I know it’s long) at 11 explaining how TEs understand this issue. If so, are there any points that you think are incorrect about the TE position?
TE’s say that no one can detect God’s handiwork yet they insist this is all God’s handiwork.
They are a bunch of very confused people.
TE’s waffle more than politicians.
TEs detect God’s handiwork everywhere, through faith.
I don’t believe that this quote has anything to do with the flagellum, or “design detection” in science. To the believer, every moment and every aspect of the universe proclaims the handiwork of God.
This is not confused: it is thorough, consistent Christian theology.
jdk
it depends a great deal on the particular old earther. Like TEers, not all old earthers are identical.
I have some sympathy for the style of TEer you describe later but only a little. That sympathy doesn’t extend to agreeing with them that the two things are, in fact, compatible.
They’re not – they’re diametrically opposed.
jdk @ 18:
If they’re pushing a framework that makes the Creator superfluous, they are, in effect, denying such.
Plenty of Christian ID folks here at UD who believe in common descent, etc. but would never identify as TEs, though they technically are. A great number of the folks publicly self-identifying as TEs will take an ignorant Darwinian assumption over a good design argument, then eat a pretzel of a theological justification rather than offer doubt against Darwin. They put YHWH in the pantheon; but, intellectually, they serve Charlie first.
Any TE that quotes Dawkins without reserve or criticism, I’d suspect. Actually, he’s a pretty reliable flag for pseudo-intellectuals, too.
I would agree about Dawkins, FWIW.
But TEs aren’t making the Creator superfluous: that is exactly the error I’m trying to describe. First, the TE’s position is about events in the material world, not in the spiritual world of the person. In fact, trust that God’s will will be done, and that God will guide people to follow and accept his inner presence, is, I am sure, as much a part of the lives of TEs as other Christians. He is certainly not being considered superfluous in that regards.
Neither is the TE considering God superfluous in the material world: God is considered as present in all moments, upholding and guiding the world as it flows from moment to moment.
The place where the TE disagrees with ID is that he doesn’t think we can scientifically discern events in which God’s pervasive presence in the flow of natural events (including what we see as chance events but He doesn’t) was inadequate.
The TE accepts that our explanations that are based on our limited human experience can only go so far, but that is far different than believing the Creator is superfluous.
No, they don’t. Romans 2:10 refers to the work of the intellect, not the work of faith. Detection is is an intellectual exercise. Acceptance is a faith exercise.
It is totally confused. The whole point of Romans 1:20 is to show that faith is not necessary to know God in his natural revelation. Faith is necessary to know God is his supernatural revelation.
jdk
You are not addressing the issue. Johnnyb offered his opinion and I followed up with the following question:
How does he reconcile undirected Darwinian evolution with the theistic modal that requires direction. He didn’t answer, and neither did you.
There is only one meaning for Darwin’s general theory of evolution. (There is also a special theory, but we are not discussing that idea). Would you care to explain why you think there are different variations?
The only definition is the one that matters, which is the one proposed by the academy and the one found in biology textbooks, which is a random, natural mechanism, acting alone–no guidance or direction from God.
Very true. That is why Thestic Darwinists use both meanings at the same time to confuse the public. Yes, they say, Darwin’s mechanism, which operates without God’s help, is the “scientific theory,” and should be accepted, except that contradict themselves by saying that God directed it after all. They are totally irrational
Michael Behe is an example of an old-style TE who agrees that the process was designed. Ken Miller is an example of a contemporary TE who says that the process is random, and without direction. It is the latter style that is irrational and the one that ID objects to.
That’s a good distinction, Stephen. But Romans say that you can recognize God through all of your experience of the world. It doesn’t take knowing about the flagellum and protein folding to be convinced of God’s creative presence. Romans does not support (nor could it, given when it was written) the need to scientifically discern design.
There is a need to scientifically discern design, Jack. It makes all the difference in the world to the investigation if something arose by necessity, chance or design.
Do you think we would study Stonehenge the same way we currently do if it was determined to be a natural formation?
jdk:
And Newton detected it through science. Newton, Kepler, et al., all saw science as the way to understand God’s handiwork. TE’s deny that this can be done. TEs are a confused bunch
BTW, Jack, ID doesn’t say that we can discern God’s involvement. ID makes the claim that we can detect the presence of Intelligent Design- period
Darwin’s theory of evolution does not say that the evolutionary mechanism “appears” unguided, it says that it “is” unguided, period. That is why they call it the “science” of evolution. If it only appears unguided, then it is really guided and Darwin has left the building. This is another example of irrationality courtesy of the TE community. Plantinga is confused because he doesn’t understand the theory of evolution as it is presented by its proponents. Or, maybe he was just having a bad day.
Newton did not. Newton specifically, and famously said,
At #21, I wrote, “Romans 2:10 refers to the work of the *intellect,* not the work of faith. Detection is is an intellectual exercise. Acceptance is a faith exercise.”
I should have written that Roman’s 2:10 applies to the exercise of *reason,* not the work of faith. Detection is an exercise in reason. Faith and reason are both intellectual exercises.
jdk
Let’s break it down:
*For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:*
It means that the Creator’s existence is made evident through his handiwork, that is, the invisible Creator is made evident by his visible creation. It is an even stronger claim than ID’s hypothesis, so the stronger claim obviously supports the weaker claim, that is, if we can detect the eternal God by observing temporal nature, then if follows that the science of ID is correct. Obviously, the observable evidence of God’s natural revelation completely nullifies the TE claim that we must take it on faith. It does not refer to “all our experience of the world.” It refers only to our experience of inferring the cause (God) from the observable effect (nature).
Thanks again for more clarification. I think you have explained the distinction here about Romans being about reason, not faith to me before, so maybe this time I’ll get it. 🙂
However, I don’t agree with the rest of what you write. The TE rests his belief on the pervasive presence of God on both what his reason tells him about the observable world and what his faith tells him about the omni-everything God that is the Creator of the world. The TE would agree with Romans.
But Romans does not support nor disavow, ID, as the idea that scientific evidence could show that some things were specifically designed, and were in a separate category, so to speak, from the whole of the rest of the world, was not even an option at the time Romans was written.
The TE accepts that God’s creative power and will are responsible for the rainbow as well as the flagellum, but doesn’t see a reason to consider one “designed” and the other not.
Jack- Read Newton’s Principia:
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” – Sir Isaac Newton
“Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”
“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
You lose, Jack
Pure nonsense. ID’s position is that the universe displays evidence of being Intelligently Designed starting with the laws that govern it- all evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
Read “The Privileged Planet”
Yes, Newton was a theist. But his science did not include God as part of any explanation. He was a TE, not an IDist.
Sorry, Joe.
Yes, you are sorry, Jack. Read the quotes and stop being such a slacker.
jdk is either ignorant or just plain lying.
Again, ba, Newton is a theist, but he specifically says he does not make hypotheses about ultimate causes, including God, in his science. Newton would be classified as a TE, not an IDist.
So just plain lying is the answer!
You may think I’m wrong, ba, but that’s different than lying.
In fact, you offer this quote,
That’s the TE position.
A few notes:
And if jdk would have remembered his history right, he would have remembered that Newton, Leibniz (and Laplace) had a disagreement about God’s role in creation. Newton was supposedly chastised by Leibniz (and Laplace) for invoking “God of the gaps”:
Yet, although Newton held God to be active in creation and not a distant clock-maker, the preceding account of Newton is a bit of Whig history:
Here is an interesting article about the Newton-Leibniz-Laplace controversy that shows Newton’s ‘God of the gaps’ controversy is not nearly as cut and dried as some atheists and/or Theistic Evolutionists have tried to make it out to be:
As to “Making it right the first time”, I hold that both Newton and Leibniz (and even Laplace) would be very pleased by what modern science has now revealed about the wisdom and power of God in “Making it right the first time”:
And that jdk is what you call making it right the first time!
Moreover, advances in quantum mechanics further proves that God is not a distant watchmaker
For anybody that wants to ‘get into the weeds’ of “occasionalist idealism”, I recommend Dr. Gordon’s video and article on the subject:
Ironically, Berkeley University itself is named after this 18th-century Anglo-Irish bishop and philosopher
Moreover, the Copernican principle, i.e. the principle of mediocrity, has now been overturned by both quantum mechanics and general relativity (as is shown starting at the 13:30 minute mark of the following video):
I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
Verses:
ba, you accused me of lying.
I pointed out that I disagree with you, which is very different than lying, and in fact used a quote that you posted to support my argument.
Can you explain why you think I am lying, as opposed to thinking I am wrong?
I f not, would you retract your accusation?
jdk @39
What is? That “there is a being who made all things”?
You do know that TE holds that life forms came about by a random process — instead of intelligent design — don’t you? You do know that TE argues against intelligent design, right?
I proved that you were lying about Newton in post 40. I’ll let Mr. Arrington arbitrate the matter if you disagree and will stand by his judgement of who to ban.
re 44: No ba, you didn’t “prove that I was lying”. You just provided what you considered evidence for your position.
It appears your attitude seems to be you are right, and when you state things everyone else should know that you are right, so if someone disagrees with you, they are lying (because you know that they really know that you are right.)
That’s obviously untenable.
I don’t know whether banning is in order, but I stand by my statement that I disagree with you, but am not lying, and I ask you to retract your accusation.
If you want Barry to step in and offer his thoughts, that’s fine with me.
Okie Dokie, especially after being corrected about Newton in post 40, I stand by my observation that you are lying about Newton. Arbitration requested.
Where does Newton say this? I cannot find it. Reference please.
How do you explain that, in the first edition of the ‘Principia’, Book III, Newton concludes, when he observes that the smallest and densest planets are nearest to the sun, that …
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
JDK:
You have issues, jack. the point was that Newton used science as a way to understand God’s handiwork
Wrong again. Read the quotes- Newton was definitely an IDist
Also, re 47:
From “The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Eighteenth Century
edited by James A. Harris”
Sir Isaac Newton used science as a way of understanding God’s handiwork.
TE’s do not.
The quotes provided in 32 are exactly what we would expect to see from an IDist and not a TE.
jdk @ 20:
I get your point. I find myself largely incompatible with popular notions of “spirituality”, so I’ll just let those implications rest.
ID, of course, cannot point directly to YHWH; the Bible has to be both sufficiently anomalous and consistent to point to Him independently; and, as I expect it does, such a concession wouldn’t be entirely illogical if Darwin were ultimately vindicated.
However, I find it unnecessary, and StephenB and ET’s positions far more parsimonious and consistent with the text.
jdk
Romans does not confirm ID’s scientific hypothesis, but it does confirm the classical philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which are consistent with the ID hypothesis, though not identical with it.
Romans doesn’t negate the ID position as it does the TE position. Thus, the ID position is more in keeping with Romans 1:20 than the TE position, which literally denies that God speaks through nature. ID agrees that nature speaks of a designer, but not necessarily the Creator God. Thus, it is close, though not identical, to the arguments in Romans 1:20.
Here is the problem: TEs say that God’s creative power is responsible for the flagellum, but they also say that Darwion’s naturalistic mechanism, acting alone and without God’s creative power, is responsible for the flagellum. They cannot have it both ways.
If God used an evolutionary process to bring the flagellum into existence, it follows that the evolutionary process that was used is designed (or programmed, or directed, or guided, or whatever) If God’s creative power is responsible for the flagellum, (granting for the sake of argument that evolution is true), then evolution is being directed. If evolution is not directed (Darwin), then God’s creative power is not in play.
Stephen, you continue to make the conflation between evolution as understood by a materialist and evolution as understood by a TE.
You write,
No, that’s exactly what TEs don’t believe. They believe that God’s creative power is present in every moment. As to evolution, I’ll say again, what appears as chance to us is not chance to God. The TE recognizes this distinction.
FWIW, my vacation is over, and real life starts up again, so I’m signing off these discussions, which have been interesting and, with one exception, civil, so thanks.
One last quote, from a TE friend, which makes my point:
jdk
How can a TE, who relies solely on faith, agree that God’s existence can be discovered through the use of reason?
There is quite a bit of that to go around but that doesn’t make it so. For example there is a scientific explanation for how cells divide but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t intelligently designed.
jdk
No, I am not conflating anything. The TE’s understanding of evolution’s *mechanism* is exactly the same as the materialist’s.
As I explained, they believe in two contradictory positions. God guided evolution and God didn’t guide evolution. They are not rational
<blockquoAs to evolution, I’ll say again, what appears as chance to us is not chance to God. The TE recognizes this distinction.
As I said above, either evolution's MECHANISM is driven by chance (Darwin) or is it driven by God's creative power (design). It cannot be both at the same time. Darwin's mechanism allows only for accidental outcomes. Guided evolution allows for intended outcomes. Evolution's outcome cannot be both intended and accidental. I don't understand why this point is so hard to grasp.
All this is irrelevant to the so-called “science” of evolution, which TEs claim to accept. This issue is the mechanism. Does it work to achieve the outcome intended by the creator (guided evolution) or does it produce an accidental outcome that was not necessarily expected (unguided Darwinian evolution). It can’t be both at the same time, yet the TEs try to make it so. Again, I don’t know why this point is so hard to grasp.
jdk
Darwinian evolution, which TEs accept, says that Evolution IS, not SEEMS, random. Again, TEs try to have it both ways. When they call on Darwin, they say that the process is random; when they call on God, they say it only seems that way.
The question in the title asks whether a person can believe in God and Darwinian evolution. A more appropriate question would be “should a person believe in God and Darwinian evolution” or “is it necessary for the person who believes in God to believe in Darwinian evolution?” The only appropriate motivation for a theist to accept Darwinian evolution would be if it has been established as true whether or not there is a God. And Darwinian evolution’s only support is that it’s the only atheistical option on the table.
The question as stated would encourage us to ask whether God can do something that would appear paradoxical to our understanding if He particularly wanted to. Maybe – but why should we take refuge in such an ideology when the evidence for design is right before us?
I have been asked to arbitrate between jdk and BA77. jdk asserts that Newton was a sort of TE who never invoked God’s active continual causal influence in the universe and instead insisted that secondary causes accounted for all natural phenomena. Jdk is obviously wrong, and BA77 has attempted to set him straight. But jdk continues to insist on his position even after BA77 and others have provided overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The issue is this: BA77 says that when jdk clings to his hopelessly untenable position, he must be lying. Jdk says he is merely disagreeing, not lying, and insists that BA77 withdraw his claim.
As for the underlying issue, no reasonable person can claim that Newton did not believe in God’s active and continual intervention in the world. Indeed, Newton’s suggestion that God from time to time tuned up the planets’ orbits in order to balance out all of the perturbations is probably the most famous example in the history of the world of god-of-the-gaps thinking. In light of that, jdk’s assertion and insistence on maintaining it are astonishing.
When someone such as jdk continues to insist on a position after being corrected by overwhelming evidence to the contrary, what are we to do? Can we entertain the position that they are merely mistaken, or are we compelled to conclude they are lying? I have pondered this question from time to time. On the one hand, it is certainly possible that instead of lying jdk is just really really stupid and therefore incapable of grasping the implications of the evidence. I suppose it is possible that after being shown that he is spectacularly wrong about Newton, he is incapable of understanding. On the other hand, it is difficult to credit the argument that anyone is really that stupid. No reasonable person can continue to maintain jdk’s views on the matter in light of the evidence; therefore, the only viable conclusion is that he is rejecting the evidence in bad faith, i.e., lying.
So which is it? Is jdk really really stupid or a liar? I cannot delve into jdk’s heart of hearts and know the answer definitively. But my best guess is no one is that stupid. He is denying a conclusion absolutely compelled by the evidence in bad faith, which is the moral equivalent of lying.
Thanks Mr. Arrington. That was a nuanced and fair arbitration that I, which should be no surprise since it went in my favor, hold to be extremely judicious.
But to go further into exactly why I feel this is so important. Atheists have been, through deception, trying to literally steal science from Christianity since at least the second half of the nineteenth century.
In the following article, ‘Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it’, Peter Harrison notes that the warfare thesis between science and religion is wrong. Specifically he stated, “The conflict model of science and religion offered a mistaken view of the past and, when combined with expectations of secularisation, led to a flawed vision of the future.”
And in the following articles, another atheist scholar of medieval history (Tim O’Neill), reveals that secular humanists have tried for several centuries now, because of their bias against Christianity, to rewrite history by characterizing the middle ages, where Christianity had come to dominate Europe, as ‘dark’ and backward. Where “the Renaissance” and specifically the enlightenment supposedly saved us from the dark ages of Christianity
In fact, the false revisionist history of “the Renaissance” and the enlightenment saving us from the dark ages of Christianity is apparently so entrenched in left wing academia that President Obama, in his farewell address, falsely claimed that enlightenment thinking guided the American founders instead of Christian and Biblical principles guiding them as they actually did.
A more realistic historical account of what ‘enlightenment’ thinking actually led to can be found in, not in America’s founding, but in the The French Revolution and it’s Reign of Terror which launched the first modern genocide aimed at Christians and where 40,000 people were beheaded and 300,000 were butchered.
Besides the rampant “enlightenment” deception from atheists in academia, the claim that ‘methodological naturalism’ should be the ‘ground rule’ for science is another major attempted deception on the part of atheists in their effort to steal science away from its Christian moorings.
Many scientists, including many scientists who personally believe in God, erroneously believe that methodological naturalism is the required assumption for doing science:
In fact, the judge in the Dover case, who ruled against Intelligent Design being taught in schools, concluded that “Methodological naturalism is a ‘ground rule’ of science today”
Yet, contrary to what many people believe, “Methodological naturalism is certainly NOT a ‘ground rule’ of science today”.
As Karl Popper clearly illustrated, the one ground rule in science that clearly demarcates whether a theory is scientific or not is whether the theory is falsifiable or not. In fact Popper said, “I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical.,,, is liable to turn into a dogma”
And on the issue of being falsifiable, Darwinian Evolution certainly does not qualify as being a valid scientific theory, since it has no clear criteria for falsification (based on a mathematical law).
Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution ‘cannot be refuted by any possible observations’ and is thus “outside empirical science.”
For anyone who has debated Darwinists, the fact that Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable should not be all that surprising. Any evidence presented to a Darwinist against Darwinian evolution being true is, for the most part, simply ignored or rationalized away by the Darwinist.
As Dr. Cornelius Hunter notes
Moreover, assuming methodological naturalism as the supposed ground rule for science, instead of protecting science from misleading lines of inquiry, actually leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science:
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Science, and Scientists, should definitely stick with the Theistic worldview that brought them to the dance, i.e. Christianity:
Barry, you don’t even accurately represent my view about TE’s or my point about the difference between Newton’s position on science vs his theistic beliefs.
And then you conclude I’m lying.
You’re wrong, and your inability to talk my points into consideration is inexcusable.
Neither you or ba are worth my time, and that’s the kindest thing I can say in public.
Devastating refutation of the facts, Jack- not.
You are not even wrong. Good luck with that
jdk at 64,
Now, Now, Now jdk. Don’t let your feelings get hurt. Remember, the Eastern Mysticism you champion from time to time says that ‘self is an illusion’. So the ‘truth’ is there is no “you” to have your feelings hurt in the first place. Your sadness is just an illusion from you believing that there really is a you to be sad in the first place. ,,, Get over ‘yourself’ already. 🙂
Moreover, atheistic materialism is even more antagonistic to your claim that you are telling the truth and that you are not lying than your Eastern Mysticism is. Truth is, by its very nature, immaterial and therefore can have no material explanation. Moreover, as if that was not already bad enough, if Darwinian evolution were actually true then (the neuronal illusion of) you would have no reason to believe that any of your (illusory) beliefs might be true:
Thus jdk, you can (in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) stamp your feet, pout and insist that you are not lying, but, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, you have no way of knowing which of you beliefs might be true in the first place. i.e. You have no way of knowing if you are lying or not!
Not a good position to be in for someone trying to protest that he is being truthful. 🙂
Moreover, since truth cannot possibly be based in the Atheist’s naturalistic worldview, then it necessarily follows that “The Truth” must be based in the person of God.
Verse:
BA,
BA77,
We must not have been reading the same comment.
AK, but when Dawkins stated this in his ‘refined’ English accent:,,,
That was nuanced and fair???
I guess it is just the English accent that makes it sound so smart when he says it.
Small difference between Dawkins and Arrington too. Arrington is a lawyer who is trained, much like Phillip Johnson was (i.e. author of Darwin on Trial), to spot fallacies in arguments. Which actually is a very useful skill set to have when debating Darwinists. (And is one of the primary reasons Johnson was so successful in exposing the fraudulent tactics of debate, that Darwinists constantly use, to the general public)
Whereas Dawkins is basically a teacher in the art of evolutionary propaganda.
Allan:
Your reading skills are very, very suspect. 😛
BA77,
No. But, as my mother used to tell me, ‘two wrongs don’t make a wrong’.
But if you think that BA’s “arbitration” was fair and nuanced, you have different definitions for fair and nuanced than I and the rest of the world do.
Allan Keith,
Really???
As Stein asked Dawkins, “there are 7 billion people in the world, how many have you spoken to?”
Moreover, if you think that Newton was a TE you are as deluded and dishonest as jdk was.
Newton is literally, as pointed out in post 40, the poster boy for Biologos, the leading TE organization in the world, and for Neil deGrasse Tyson for invoking “God of the Gaps”.
Moreover, as if that was not more than enough, and as ET pointed out in post 32, Newton added this to the third and final edition of Principia
Thus, it is not a question of whether jdk was dishonest about Newton, it is now a question of why jdk, and now also you, would be so dishonest towards the facts now in hand?
That is just plain strange.
But please do continue. It is quite humorous actually in that it exposes Darwinists as frauds with hardly any effort on our part. 🙂
Kind of like watching Hitler self destruct in his final days:
BA77, maybe we should go right to the definition of nuance.
Nuance: a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.
Barry claimed that the only options to explain jdk were that he was very, very, very stupid, or that he is a liar.
There is nothing nuanced about Barry’s argument.
I am not trying to defend jdk’s point with respect to Newton. Frankly, I don’t care. What Newton believed or how Dawkins behaves is completely irrelevant. Newton couldn’t have an informed opinion about the modern theory of evolution because he died centuries before it was presented. If you are trying to argue that evolution is cast into doubt because of the behaviour of one or two individuals, then you have to accept the same link with regards to how a hand full of christians behave. For example, by all accounts, Newton was a completely reprehensible and vindictive man. On top of that, he did not believe that Christ was god. Not exactly a good role model for Christianity.
Meanwhile, no one has addressed my points about why God and Darwin cannot logically co-exist, which is the subject of this thread.
SB, sure they can coexist. But that depends on your definition of god. If he is a being responsible for designing and creating all major species,or kinds, then they are not compatible. If god was responsible for creating life and the mechanisms necessary to allow for the evolution of life, then it is compatible.
Allan Keith is just confused. Evolutionism does NOT allow for “god was responsible for creating life and the mechanisms necessary to allow for the evolution of life”.
An evolutionism that is OK with telic processes isn’t evolutionism, which is all about non-telic processes.
Allan:
And then an explanation ensued.
As I said Allan has reading comprehension issues.
StephenB, since all of science is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend that intelligibility (i.e. presuppositional apologetics), then is necessarily follows that God does not need Darwin’s theory, but that Darwin’s theory, in order to be considered remotely scientific, is absolutely dependent of God.
This fact is born out by the fact that Darwin’s book, Origin, and all major books on evolution since Darwin’s book, are heavily infused with liberal Theistic presuppositions about what God would and would not do in this universe.
The theory, since it has no empirical basis, nor law of nature, to appeal to, would literally implode without that false theological basis:
Allan Keith states.
“I am not trying to defend jdk’s point with respect to Newton”
Then your objection collapses in on itself. That was exactly the point you were claiming lacked nuance.
As ET pointed out, you read the first line then apparently did not read any further to the rationale behind Barry’s reasoning for calling jdk a liar about Newton’s position.
It seems to me you just want to make some kind of moral argument about Barry and Newton. But even that is ludicrous since, as an atheist, you lack any objective basis for morality.
Thus, you fail on two counts in your objection.
BA77,
So, you think that describing someone as either very, very, very stupid, or a liar is nuanced? If that is your stand, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Have a nice weekend.
ET,
Nobody is talking about evolutionism. We were talking about evolution, which says nothing about origin of life.
Thanks for the support, Allan.
And re 73, Stephen: FTR, I did address the OP, at 11. I know my response isn’t accepted here (or even properly understood), but I think I presented a view that many TE’s would find lots to agree with.
So Allan, why are you yourself an atheist?
Can you pinpoint an exact logical reason for your atheism other than your emotional bias?
Before you answer that question, please note that a logical choice demands that you have the free will necessary to make that logical choice, i.e. to ‘logically’ reject God you must presuppose the Theistic presupposition of free will.,,, An Atheist is, in reality, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
Allan Keith is totally confused:
Wrong again. That is the subject of the OP. Darwinian evolution is evolutionism.
You have absolutely no clue, do you?
BA77,
Thank you for asking. I will answer, although I suspect that you will resort to calling me insane because of some paper you quote mine that suggests that there is a higher incidence of mental illness amongst atheists.
In short, I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest the existence of an all loving, all knowing god. And with regard to the bible, even if god exists, I refuse to worship any being who would do, instruct to be done, and allow to be done, some of the things that are written in the bible. Those things would make Hitler look like an altar boy (which he was).
Allan is even more confused:
You either didn’t read what Barry wrote or you didn’t understand it. Either way you have proven that there is no sense continuing the discussion.
Allan:
There isn’t any evidence for materialism, either. And ID doesn’t require the existence of an all loving, all knowing god.
“They believe that God’s creative power is present in every moment.”
jdk:
God says he stopped creating after six days.
Now who should a Christian believe?
Hostile atheists who openly proclaim their intention to destroy Christianity, or God?
This is not a trick question … if you don’t believe God, you’re not a Christian.
Psalm 118:9 It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.
Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
AK, you listed emotional reasons, not a logical reason. Please reread the question and try again.
Scuzzaman @ 87
Nice reply and nicely done.
Allan Keith
Let’s break it down. If God is responsible for Creating life *as he intended it to be,* (through an evolutionary process), then if follows that the process us must unfold in a way that reflects those intentions. In other words, the process, to produce the Creator’s apriori intent, must close off all other outcomes, inasmuch as it is designed to produce on and only one outcome. Darwinian evolution cannot exclude outcomes because it random nature allows it to produce any outcome that chance will produce. Thus, any evolutionary process that guarantees God’s specific intentions cannot be a Darwinian process, which cannot guarantee any outcome at all.
Bornagain
Bornagain, I agree that the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise is based on principles of rational intelligibility and the human capacity to to comprehend it.
However, when I say that God cannot be reconciled with Darwin, I am referring not to Darwin’s attempt to do science but rather with the claims made by his theory and their possible relationship with God’s creative intent.
According to Darwin, naturalistic forces, acting alone, can produce life as we know it, but the outcome of that process is an *accident.* By virtue of its randomness, the NeoDarwinian mechanism cannot guarantee a desired outcome. Hence, it is inconsistent with any evolutionary process that God might use to guarantee the one and only outcome He wants.
It is not logically possible for a purposeful mindful God to use a purposeless, mindless process to achieve his *specified* ends. The Darwinian mechanism cannot specify. To put it simply, you can’t guarantee the specified (desired) outcome of an evolutionary process if that same process is open to producing many other outcomes. This is basic logic. For more details, please read my comment to Allan @90.
StephenB, I know all that. It’s just the way you worded the question. I mistook your intent behind the question. I thought you might be trying to defend the TE position, not take it apart as you subsequently, in fact, did.
To StephenB:
I throw a die and it comes up 6.
This is obviously a chance event from our human perspective.
How is God involved in this event, if at all?
1. Did he cause it to come up 6? Was it according to his will that it be 6? Are these different questions?
2. In respect to 1, if he did cause it to come up 6, in what way do we understand how he did that? Is he actively choosing the outcome of every chance event, or is he usually, or sometimes, or his he present in all natural events?
2. If he wasn’t involved, was it just a chance event that happened through natural processes in which God was not involved? That is, do truly chance events happen regularly outside of the scope of God’s will or activity in the world?
3. If God had desired it to come up 5, could he have changed the course of events which led to it coming up 6?
4. In the case of 3, would it be correct that it looked like a chance event to us, but was not because God actively chose to have it be a 5?
More broadly, how do you understand God’s role in the world, everyday, in respect to chance events? Is his will manifested in all, some or none of them.
And if some or none, does not that imply that God is present in the world only some of the time, and otherwise lets the world go, in a deistic fashion, the rest of the time?
What do you think?
Allan Keith,
When I ask for a logical reason for why you are an atheist, I was not looking for you to list your emotional and moral grievances against God. I was looking for you to list something more akin to one of these ‘logical’ arguments on this following site:
Those arguments all fail for one reason or the other, but at least they are attempts to logically defend, not emotionally defend, what is logically indefensible, namely atheism.
On the other side of the coin, here are some fairly solid arguments for God that are, unlike arguments for atheism, not so easily refuted:
And here is Plantinga’s list:
Of related interest. Don’t feel bad AK, even many elite scientists haven’t really thought through the exact reasons for why they are an atheist and/or agnostic in the first place.
Jack- Read comment 87 and buy a vowel.
ET,
Since the question from BA77 wasn’t about ID, I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Again.
BA77,
Read again pal. My first sententence said that I am an atheist because I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest a god. My subsequent comment was directed towards the Christian god described in the bible and why I would refuse to worship that sadistic being if he actually existed. Resolve that first comment and we can talk about the rest. Until then, the rest of my comment is based on an astronomically improbable hypothetical (that god exists).
SB,
That’s not quite what I said. If god set things in motion, including the mechanisms necessary for evolution, and didn’t intervene after that, then there is no conflict with the modern understanding of evolution. If he set it in motion with a single immutable direction, purpose, outcome, then there is a conflict.
So Allan, for you it is the Christian God or no God at all? Put another way, for you to reject Christian claims about God’s character implies that there is no God at all. I find that puzzling. Why is that?
Allan:
Nonsense. If God set the mechanisms necessary for evolution in motion then they are telic processes. Evolutionism only deals with non-telic processes.
Allan:
Of course you don’t. You also ignored the first part of my comment because it exposes you as a hypocrite.
Allan:
You don’t seem to understand evidence.
jdk
I appreciate your questions, but I don’t think we can get at the problem in exactly that way. We must find an example in which God, not a human, is the sole cause of the outcome. So, let’s go back to your example using a pair of dice. Assume that God wants to get a 7 through an evolutionary process that generates numbers with values between 2 and 12.
God Guided Evolution. [a] In this case, God throws a pair of loaded dice so that 7 is the guaranteed outcome. Obviously, he has left nothing to chance because He has closed off all other outcomes (numbers between 2 and 12). By virtue of using the loaded dice (non random), he is guaranteed to get the outcome he wants.
Unguided Darwinian Evolution. [b] In this case, God uses a pair of fair dice (random) so that any number between 2 and 12 has an equal chance of coming up. He will probably not get a 7, although he may. In any case, he cannot guarantee a 7 by using this random process.
Thus, he can only use a pair of loaded dice (guided evolution) to achieve that end. It would be impossible to guarantee that outcome using fair dice (random evolution)
Allan Keith, you state that
“I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest a god.”
And yet the fact of the matter, contrary to what you may believe, is not that you have not seen any compelling evidence. It is that you live in constant denial of the evidence for design and purpose that you see all around you.
Don’t believe me? Well, as usual, I have evidence to, unlike atheists, back my position up.
Studies now establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their very own design inference!
“Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.”
Simply put, ‘design intuition’ is, because we are ‘made in the image of God’ hardwired into each of us from the beginning of our lives.
i.e. It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves are seeing in nature.
I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans1:19-20
Now AK, I can already anticipate that you are feverishly trying to think of a way you can ‘suppress’ these studies that say you have a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to see things as designed,,,,
But before you do that, I want you to honestly answer the following question,,, Is the apparent design of the human brain best explained by Intelligent Design or by unguided materialistic processes?
I ask this since, #1, Darwinists have no clue where even a single neuron came from,,,
And, #2, the human brain is constructed on a level of complexity that defies human comprehension
So Allan, what is your answer? Do you rightly say that the human brain is obviously the product of very, very, advanced Intelligent Design or do you, against all reason and common sense, (and your very own “knee jerk” reaction), say, for all the readers on UD to see, that the awe inspiring complexity of the human brain is merely the result of purely accidental materialistic processes cobbling things together?
Basically Allan, the question boils down to, do you choose sanity or insanity?
Let’s leave evolution out of it: I am trying to investigate how you, and others, see the presence of God on a daily moment-by-moment basis.
I also don’t see why a human throwing the dice makes a difference, but suppose a gust of wind blows the dice on the floor, and it comes up six.
What are your answers to my questions?
Allan Keith
There is a conflict if the mechanism is random, and Darwin’s mechanism is clearly random.
Correct. That is my point.
jdk:
Take your straw man and go home, Jack.
jdk:
Supplemental note:
jdk
We are discussing the incompatibility of Darwinian evolution with a purposeful, mindful God, so I can hardly leave evolution “out of it.”
From the point of view of physics, the outcome is not random at all. If a pair of dice is thrown at a certain angle, with a certain force, and under certain conditions, the number that comes up has been determined solely by the physical conditions. It is only the variety of human ways of throwing the dice that makes it a random event.
You will have to be more precise about what you are asking since that question can be answered in a hundred ways. Example: Even when humans are the only causal agents involved (throwing dice) God is involved not only as the one who sustains the physical laws that determine the outcome, but also the one who sustains the existence of the causal agents themselves.
I am using “random” in the probabilistic sense of one of 6 equally probable events.
If we assume the wind blows the dice off the table, you have described a completely deterministic outcome (unless you want to back up and say all the exact forces of that particular gust of wind were determined.)
But I think that is missing the point. These are all natural processes working themselves out, from our point of view, in a deterministic fashion to produce, from our point of view, one of six equally probable, random outcomes.
My question is how was God involved? Was he only involved deistically in that he has set all these natural forces in motion? Is he actively involved in the upholding and manifestation of those laws in every event? Could he cause a particular outcome, or is he just watching a six come up?
What is your theological understanding of God’s presence in the unfolding of this event? Can you explain some about what you believe?
jdk
No, God’s laws and human agency caused it to come up 6, unless, of course, you include God’s role as the one who sustains the laws and the human agents.
It would depend on God’s willingness to interfere will human free agency. As a general rule, God prompts, but doesn’t intrude.
Yes, I think so. God could always fool us if he wanted to. However, I don’t think you can build a “science” of Darwinian evolution on the assumption that God is really doing the mutating, even though it seems to us that nature, acting alone, is doing the mutating. If so, what would be the point of studying science since it would be providing exactly the wrong answers about the observable world? Besides, if God is really doing the mutating (and the selecting) then Darwin has left the building.
Thanks for the short discussion, Stephen. I think I’ll just let my post at 11 stand as my explanation of TE, and not try to dig deeper here about these issues.
Jack, your comment in 11 stands as a joke. So yes it would be wise for you to just leave it alone.
BA77@104, you provide articles that suggest that we have a knee-jerk feeling that there is purpose to life. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with this. How is that compelling evidence that life was designed? We also have a knee-jerk feeling that our opinions are correct, that the sky is actually blue. We have a knee-jerk feeling that others perceive colour the same way that we do. We perceive movement but our eyes do not record movement. Our knee-jerk reaction to magnetism is that it is supernatural. Our knee-jerk reaction to homosexual acts is usually revulsion.
Science is about looking beyond these knee-jerk beliefs. Acknowledging bias and examining them objectively. Just because I feel that my life has a higher purpose doesn’t mean that it does.
SB,
That’s why I said that it depended on your flavour of god. Surely god could simply have created the first bacteria over thee billion years ago and allowed evolution to proceed without any further intervention. No goal, no predetermined plan. Just let the universe he created act on his new life form according to the physical laws that he created. This god would not conflict with evolution as we currently understand it.
The evidence says there is a purpose, a higher purpose, to our lives.
The evidence is in all it took to get us here, including the planet and solar system. But to you it was all just an accident. But unfortunately that isn’t scientific as it is untestable.
BTW homosexuality is unnatural and demonstrates the effects of genetic entropy.
Allan:
Your equivocation is duly noted and there isn’t any non-telic process that can produce eukaryotes from populations of prokaryotes. So in your scenario we wouldn’t exist
Allan Keith, #1, you failed to even touch upon the question I asked you about the human brain.
# 2, all your counter examples, when examined in detail, support Theism.
For instance, you mentioned magnetism. I think that both Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, who were both committed Christians, would be very surprised that you thought that magnetism was anything other than the work of a divine lawgiver. i.e. God
Allan Keith
We are discussing God, as creator, and the one responsible for the origin and development of life. That is the God the TEs claim to believe in, and that is the God which they fail to reconcile with their model.
If there is no predetermined plan, or no goal, then the outcome of the process is obviously an accident. Yet the TEs claim that the outcome of this same process was God’s original intent.. That is a clear contradiction.
SB,
If god is the all powerful, all knowing being that he is portrayed to be, then he would know all of the outcomes of all random mutations, reproductive fitness, natural disasters, chemical reactions and orbit of every electron in the universe. Any being with this much power and knowledge could surely create the first life form and sit back for four billion years until the species he knows will be the inevitable outcome, crawls out of Africa. None of this would be in conflict with evolution as we know it. At least, no more so than his knowing everything you will do violates your free will.
Allan Keith, I consider it very disingenuous of you to try to explain away the ‘knee jerk’ studies when I specifically asked you this in post 104:
“Now AK, I can already anticipate that you are feverishly trying to think of a way you can ‘suppress’ these studies that say you have a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to see things as designed,,,,
But before you do that, I want you to honestly answer the following question,,, Is the apparent design of the human brain best explained by Intelligent Design or by unguided materialistic processes?”
and then this question at the end of post 104,,,
“So Allan, what is your answer? Do you rightly say that the human brain is obviously the product of very, very, advanced Intelligent Design or do you, against all reason and common sense, (and your very own “knee jerk” reaction), say, for all the readers on UD to see, that the awe inspiring complexity of the human brain is merely the result of purely accidental materialistic processes cobbling things together?
Basically Allan, the question boils down to, do you choose sanity or insanity?”
Please quit disingenuously dodging the question AK!
Allan:
Nice straw man
Allan Keith
God’s knowledge has nothing to do with it. It is solely a question of what God causes to happen. God knows that it is logically impossible to achieve a specified result using a random evolutionary process. The only way God can guarantee a specific outcome is to use a non-random process. God’s knowledge of the outcome is not the reason for the outcome. It is God’s actions that are the cause of the outcome. The point can be better understood using the example of fair dice vs loaded dice.
____________________________________________________________
God Guided Evolution. [a] In this case, God throws a pair of loaded dice so that 7 is the guaranteed outcome. Obviously, he has left nothing to chance because He has closed off all other outcomes (numbers between 2 and 12). By virtue of using the loaded dice (non random), he is guaranteed to get the outcome he wants.
Unguided Darwinian Evolution. [b] In this case, God uses a pair of fair dice (random) so that any number between 2 and 12 has an equal chance of coming up. He will probably not get a 7, although he may. In any case, he cannot guarantee a 7 by using this random process.
Thus, he can only use a pair of loaded dice (guided evolution) to achieve that end. It would be impossible to guarantee that outcome using fair dice (random evolution)
BA77,
What is disingenuous about directly responding to what you consider to be compelling evidence of a higher purpose in life?
You want me to answer your pointless question? I think that evolution, at present, is the best explanation for the human brain. And I think that the brain is the best explanation for consciousness. I have seen no compelling evidence that our mind/consciousness exists without the brain. Nobody has presented and tested a hypothesis as to how this designer managed to design biological life and realize this design. Nobody has proposed and tested a hypothesis as to how the designer designed and created the billions of disembodied consciousnesses and subsequently fixed them to individual designed bodies. All we have been provided with is that because we don’t yet know how something happened, it must require god.
Maybe, at the end of the day, we may discover that god exists and that he is responsible for the design of all life. But, given the magnitude and speed with which our increased knowledge narrows the gaps where god may fit, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Allan:
There isn’t any evidence for that claim. You brand of evolution can’t even produce eukaryotes.
We don’t need to know how a designer did something before we can determine something was designed. You clearly don’t understand how science works.
Yours is the position that says it can explain the how, not ID. Yet your position can’t explain the how.
There isn’t anything that supports materialism and never will be.
SB,
I would disagree. What would seem random to us would surely not be random to an all knowing god. If he had humans in mind as the ultimate goal (which I doubt) surely he could create the initial conditions under which this will happen, even with no intervention along this long process. I am not saying this is what happened, because I don’t. But if it were true, the actual evolution of life for three plus billion years would follow a process that is not incompatible with modern evolutionary theory. Mutations would still appear to be random. Disasters would still occur. Drift would still occur. Selection would still occur. The fact that god would know the ultimate outcome doesn’t really matter.
Allan,
Your position has nothing but the hope of the biased. You can’t even muster testable hypotheses of how something evolved and your position is supposed to be all about the how.
Can you link to this alleged “modern evolutionary theory”? I ask because I know that there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. How can there be without those testable hypotheses which are supposed come first?
Allan
If God had humans in mind, he could create the initial conditions to serve that purpose, in which case it is a planned process and not a random process.
I understand. We are discussing only what is possible and what is not possible.
It would be incompatible. Modern evolutionary theory says that the end result of evolution was unplanned. Only a planned process can produce a specified result. An unplanned process can produce only indeterminate results. That is why I presented the example of using fair dice (unplanned outcome) and loaded dice (planned outcome).
What God *knows* is irrelevant because it is not the reason for the outcome. The outcome is produced by what God *does.* TEs are terribly confused about that point.
I agree. What is logically impossible to us is also logically impossible to God.
God cannot make a square triangle & he cannot use a random process to achieve a specified result.
Origenes
That is correct.
Allan Keith after being shown this evidence,,,
After being shown that evidence, Allen Keith has the audacity to state:
No Allen. The human brain most certainly did not evolve by the random accumulation of serendipitous accidents. Not even close. That answer is not even in the ballpark of sanity.
It is not even “maybe if you look at it the right way the human brain could appear to maybe have been intelligently designed”. Again, not even close. The human brain is ‘beyond belief’ designed… ‘beyond anything we imagined’ designed!!!
The apparent design of the human brain is so overwhelming that it is literally screaming in our face “I AM INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!!!”. ,,,
The conclusion that the human brain is designed is so overwhelming that I hold it to be a conclusion that is even more sure, and rock solid, to us than our intuitive grasp of the fact that 2+2=4
Moreover, I hold that the only reason anyone in their right mind would even try to deny such an obvious conclusion for design is because, as you yourself have given abundant evidence for, they are apparently leading lifestyles in which they do not want to be personally accountable to God.
As John stated:
And here is the full context of Romans 1:20 which I often cite
Allan Keith, In your irrational denial of God, because of whatever imagined reason you may try to conjure up, you have apparently, in the ‘bargain’ of denying God, lost your mind in the deal.
That ‘bargain’ of losing your mind for the supposed ‘privilege’ of forsaking God makes all the other worst trade deals in history pale in comparison:
If I were you AK, since it was such a horrendously bad trade deal for you, I would try to get my soul and/or mind back by any means possible.