Asks Wintery Knight: Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?

_{News
April 23, 2018

Intelligent Design, theistic evolution

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
theistic evolution}

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

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

Comments

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:
The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-UO81HmO4 Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature – Bruce L. Gordon – 2017 Excerpt page 295:,, our experience can be seen to be best explained by an occasionalist idealism of the sort advocated by George Berkeley (1685-1753) or Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). In the metaphysical context of this kind of theistic immaterialism, the vera causa that brings coherent closure to the phenomenological reality we inhabit is always and only agent causation. The necessity of causal sufficiency is met by divine action, for as Plantinga emphasizes: [T]he connection between God’s willing that there be light and there being light is necessary in the broadly logical sense: it is necessary in that sense that if God wills that p, p occurs. Insofar as we have a grasp of necessity (and we do have a grasp of necessity), we also have a grasp of causality when it is divine causality that is at issue. I take it this is a point in favor of occasionalism, and in fact it constitutes a very powerful advantage of occasionalism. 118 http://jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JBTS-2.2-Article-7.compressed.pdf George Berkeley’s (18th-century Anglo-Irish bishop and philosopher) primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called “immaterialism” (later referred to as “subjective idealism” by others). This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley George Berkeley,,,, A convinced adherent of Christianity, Berkeley believed God to be present as an immediate cause of all our experiences.,,, Berkeley believed that God is not the distant engineer of Newtonian machinery,,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Theology
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):
Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” - 13:30 minute mark - video https://youtu.be/NziDraiPiOw?t=805 Excerpt: Even individual people, as the following article makes clear, can be considered to be central in the universe according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,
You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016 Excerpt: (due to the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity) no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere. The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe. Here's another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We're looking at the light from stars that's traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we're seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened. But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It's sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates. But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes. https://mic.com/articles/144214/you-technically-are-the-center-of-the-universe-thanks-to-a-wacky-physics-quirk
Whereas, on the other hand, in Quantum Mechanics it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe. As the following article states, "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,",,,
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, states “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
"It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial, and have fears and agonies that are very similar to the fears and agonies that Copernicus and Galileo went through with their perturbations of society." Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
Thus, contrary to popular belief, humans are not nearly as insignificant in this universe as many people, including many Christians, have been falsely led to believe by the Copernican principle.
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:
Hebrews 4:13 "And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to Whom we must give account." Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
bornagain77_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

A few notes:
NEWTON'S REJECTION OF THE "NEWTONIAN WORLD VIEW": THE ROLE OF DIVINE WILL IN NEWTON'S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science, while his private writings evidence a lifelong interest in the relationship between God and the world. Yet the typical picture of Newton as a paragon of Enlightenment deism, endorsing the idea of a remote divine clockmaker and the separation of science from religion, is badly mistaken. In fact Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor itself and the cold mechanical universe upon which it is based. His conception of the world reflects rather a deep commitment to the constant activity of the divine will, unencumbered by the "rational" restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God, the very sorts of restrictions that later appealed to the deists of the 18th century. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm
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”:
Newton, Leibniz, and the Role of God in Planetary Orbits - December 2014 Excerpt: "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. "Principia Mathematica" (1687) Perhaps the most spectacular early success of Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was its natural explanation for Johannes Kepler’s observation that the planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits. But upon further reflection, some nagging problems emerge. The perfect elliptical orbits are only valid for an isolated planet orbiting around the sun. Gravity works on all objects, and so the other planets perturb the motion of the Earth, potentially leading to its ejection from the solar system. This problem vexed Sir Isaac, who postulated that God occasionally “reformed” the planets, perhaps by sending through a comet with just the right trajectory. In a famous exchange of letters, cut short only by his death in 1716, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, took Sir Isaac to task for his view. He objected that: "if God had to remedy the defects of His creation, this was surely to demean his craftsmanship."1 And moreover that: “..when God works miracles, he does it not to meet the needs of nature but the needs of grace. Anyone who thinks differently must have a very mean notion of the wisdom and power of God."2 In other words, the regular sustaining activity of God, as evidenced by natural laws, should be sufficient to explain the regular behavior of the solar system, without the need for additional ad-hoc interventions. Making it right the first time is more glorious than having to fix it later. Moreover, when God deviates from his regular sustaining activity to perform miracles, he does so for soteriological reasons, not to repair nature.,,, 1. 1. John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion, CUP, Cambridge (1991), p147. 2. From letter 1 point 4 (Nov 1715). The full correspondence can be found online. https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/addressing-christian-concerns-about-the-implications-of-biologos-science-part-1
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:
a) Newton did develop perturbation theory for the orbits (and actually applied it to the moon), so it is false that God belief prevented him from attempting to solve the problem. b) the math was not "crumbs" for Newton, since Laplace had worked on foundations laid by some of the most brilliant mathematicians of the century (Euler, Lagrange, Clairaut), some of whom also failed to solve the very same problem Newton was working on, and one of these, Euler is regarded as the greatest mathematician of all time! c) Laplace did not really solve the problem in the end, but only for first degree approximations, but Haret showed that orbits are not absolutely stable using third degree approximations. d) Finally, and most ironically perhaps, it is not clear that Laplace was motivated by atheism to solve this problem, Laplace cites with approval Leibniz's criticism of Newton's invocation of divine intervention to restore order to the Solar System: "This is to have very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God.", to them, it would count as evidence against intelligent design if God had to intervene to prevent the solar system from collapsing. So intelligent design could just as easily be a motivation to prove the stability of the solar system. (of note: original article modified since originally accessed) https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-newton-part-1/ Laplace quoting Leibniz favorably https://books.google.com/books?id=oLtHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73
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”:
“You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?” R. Webb - Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? - New Scientist – 2009 Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine - 2011 Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,, As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism. Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.” https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine Research now establishes that every planet in our solar system must possess exactly the masses and orbits that they do for advanced life to be possible on Earth. No other known planetary system comes anywhere close to having the features to make advanced life possible. We live not only on a miraculously “rare” Earth but also a miraculously “rare” planetary system. For details and documentation, see my latest blog post. - Hugh Ross - June 2017 http://www.reasons.org/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/rare-planetary-system
And that jdk is what you call making it right the first time!bornagain77_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

You may think I'm wrong, ba, but that's different than lying. In fact, you offer this quote,
These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to beleive that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.
That's the TE position.jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

So just plain lying is the answer!bornagain77_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

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.jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

jdk is either ignorant or just plain lying.
A short Schem of the true Religion - Isaac Newton Of Atheism Opposite to the first is Atheism in profession & Idolatry in practise. Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to beleive that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared. http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00007
bornagain77_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Yes, you are sorry, Jack. Read the quotes and stop being such a slacker.ET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

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.jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Likewise, Kepler considered that the laws that he discovered were there because God had made an orderly universe. That is a TE position, not an ID position.
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"ET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

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, JackET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

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.jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

jdk
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.
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).StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

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.StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Newton did not. Newton specifically, and famously said,
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction./
(from Wikipedia) Newton was very religious, but he did not invoke God in any of his science. Likewise, Kepler considered that the laws that he discovered were there because God had made an orderly universe. That is a TE position, not an ID position.
jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

He [Plantinga]does discuss the possibility that an event might appear unguided to us but still be guided by God. There’s no contradiction in that case because the event isn’t really unguided. Looking unguided and being unguided are two different properties.
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.StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

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- periodET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

jdk:
TEs detect God’s handiwork everywhere, through faith.
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 bunchET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

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?ET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

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.jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

jdk
The question is “Can a person believe in both God and Darwinian evolution?
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.
This question (Is Darwinian evolution consistent with theism) is ambiguous because of the different meanings people attach to the adjective “Darwinian”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

TEs detect God’s handiwork everywhere, through faith. Romans 1:20 New International Version (NIV)
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.
This is not confused: it is thorough, consistent Christian theology.
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.StephenB_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

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.jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

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.LocalMinimum_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

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.ScuzzaMan_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

TEs detect God's handiwork everywhere, through faith.
Romans 1:20 New International Version (NIV) 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
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_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

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?jdk_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

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.ayearningforpublius_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

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:
Methodological naturalism Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
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"
Methodological naturalism Excerpt: Pennock's testimony as an expert witness[21] at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was cited by the Judge in his Memorandum Opinion concluding that "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today":[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism
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”
Karl Popper Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see problem of induction), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures. "A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method." —?Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9. Popper instead proposed that science should adopt a methodology based on falsifiability for demarcation, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that scientific theories are characterized by falsifiability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Views
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.
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let's Dump Methodological Naturalism - Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: "Epistemology -- how we know -- and ontology -- what exists -- are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won't include minds. MN 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. You didn't write your email to me. Physics did, and informed (the illusion of) you of that event after the fact. "That's crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then -- to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse -- i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss -- we haven't the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world -- such as your email, a real pattern -- we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we're back to physics versus physics, and there's nothing for SETI to look for.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
Yet, ruling agent causality out of bounds as a legitimate explanation in science leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science:
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.
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.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Moreover, if anything, we understand Agent causality far better than we understand mechanical causality:
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf
bornagain77_{April 26, 2018
April
04
Apr
26
26
2018
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{April 25, 2018
April
04
Apr
25
25
2018
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply