Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Theistic evolution: Square peg, round hole


From Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of In the Shadow of Oz,, offers a new series on theistic evolution, starting with Square Peg for a Round Hole:

Robinson admits that Dennett has struck a vital spot in pro-Darwinian theology: “His remarks stung: there is indeed a legitimate question about whether the way in which theology engages with Darwinism amounts to anything more than a set of purely defensive and rather desperate moves.” Indeed. He goes on to broadly suggest that Dennett (and secular scientists in general) might benefit from the metaphysics of Christian theism. But this defensive maneuver seems a limp defense. The best Robinson manages in the chapter is the red herring of reversing the tables, offering “Is the mechanistic, atheistic world-view of the new atheists any more free from metaphysical commitments than a theology of nature which takes the Christian gospel as its overarching framework?” Well, perhaps the answer is yes. To be sure, even the nominalist skeptic must assume some things she cannot prove or explain. But, she isn’t quite so committed to letting those assumptions impinge upon her assessment of the mechanics or our immediate reality. In as much as there is no evidence of divine action, she is content to conclude that the Divine hasn’t acted. Like Laplace, she would have no need of that hypothesis. And, of course, it’s not clear that some ascription to a fairly sterile form of deism wouldn’t get you the same metaphysical grounding in this regard. From within theistic evolution, it’s pretty hard to get justified Christianity from “first cause” arguments (which Robinson also offers). More.

stock-photo-21067174-square-peg-in-a-round-holeActually, in my (O’Leary for News’) view, theistic evolution has never been about justifying Christianity.

It has always been about justifying Darwin to Christians. It’s not even clear that the people involved care that much about evolution as such. It is a peg on which to hang arguments for a naturalist view of life with a sort of halo illusion.

Theistic evolutionists, at bottom, oppose intelligent design because it is not compatible with any form of naturalism (nature is all there is, mind an illusion). And they are seeking an accommodation with naturalism.

See also: Wayne Rossiter: No “I” in “Me” (and no sense in Sam Harris)

At Forbes: Dump the term “theistic evolution”


My thoughts on the Krauss- Meyer-Lamoureux debate (Vincent Torley)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Rossiter: Part III review. "The third chapter in this volume, written by Celia Deane-Drummond (professor of theology at Notre Dame), is a response to RJ Berry’s chapter." https://shadowofoz.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/fight-club-truths-review-of-darwinism-and-natural-theology-chapter-3-celia-deane-drummond/ _________________ He writes: ____________ "Agreeing with Berry, she writes, “Darwin did theology a favour, for it [is] no longer possible to consider God as a distant God who simply intervened at intervals in creation; rather, if Darwin was right, God had to be re-conceived as intimately and immanently involved in the creative process.” Such logic has always seemed question-begging to me. What logically necessitates that “God had to be re-conceived as intimately and immanently involved in the creative process”? This commits the same fallacy of assumption I’ve pointed out in previous posts. I’m yet to find a theistic evolutionist who doesn’t commit it. Before beginning to seek reconciliation between Christianity’s conceptions of God and Darwin’s conceptions of nature, it must be demonstrated that both are true (or at least more likely than not)." _____________ Darwin did no favours whatsoever to the Judaeo-Christian God, in fact Darwin dismissed that belief system. It was not divinley revealed. He had no need of Him or it. A professor of theology, in this account, in my opinion, appears not to have understood the basics of Darwin's straw theology. Darwin always kept any God at arms length. Indeed, one atheist freethinker called Darwin, "Master". mw
Professor Swamidass says:
"I oppose naturalism. Of course there is so much more to the world than nature. I do not seek accommodation with naturalism."
If you oppose naturalism Professor Swamidass, then how do you know that God was not involved in the evolution of life? How do you know that He was not guiding the process? How do you know that He did not use His miraculous powers when He created universe and life? As a scientist, I realize that you do not include anything the Bible has to say in your reasoning/interpretation of the data, but if there is a Creator with supernatural powers, isn't it likely that He actually used those powers when He created the world? tjguy
Respected contributors maintain the “theism” of Professor Rossiter is easy to remove, like “candy” from a baby; comments seemingly made to discredit him in that context. The title of the main post includes the word “theistic evolution.” “Oz,” a book written by Rossiter, exposed are the theological flaws in theistic evolution. ID is indexed about 10 times and in which he appears to defend aspects of ID and Creationism. It appears, the ID movement has given favourable coverage to Rossiter. For example, Casey Luskin interviews him: http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2016/01/shadow-of-oz-wayne-rossiter-on-theistic-evolution-pt-2/ Yet, in “PEG,” he has only got to part II of a ten-part review, and, as mentioned, seemingly put down by the “candy” remark. In this case, in my opinion, comments without giving qualifying examples leave a lot to be desired. Still, it may be interesting to know of Rossiter’s view on origins, incorporating science and Christian theology; and certainly in the case of the “candy” remark and “theism.” However, Rossiter may not even entertain Sinai Creationism. Nevertheless, any scientific related theories, be it ID or not, must eventually, in my opinion, theologically in Judaeo-Christian terms, have to square the circle of the testimony of God at Mount Sinai, and the related and dependent testimonies of the Jesus in the teachings of the Father. In part II of “PEG,” Rossiter says: “The theistic evolutionist’s entire case is that the best justification for the inclusion of God into everything is that we can describe everything without Him.” Elsewhere he builds up his argument on the basis that, unguided theistic evolution processes cannot be guided by anybody. However, in relation to testimony and valid evidence, KF wrote elsewhere, and referred to at UD: ‘Testimony is included within the definition of evidence, although it is “not synonymous with evidence” because evidence “is a more comprehensive term.”’ People v. Victors, supra at 811-812. http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grnds KF continued: Mt 22: 37 . . . “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” [ESV] The Commandment to love depends on the law of Sinai, as we cannot love a false law, or one that is in the slightest suspect or corrupt. Theologically, the whole law must be deemed corrupt by implication. One crumb of divine law, is greater than all physical laws in the universe, for they are all subject to one divine law, God created in six days. No matter how much side-splitting laughter is caused. If Christians cannot be ethical or moral in keeping a part of one divine law, what then abortion, adultery, and false witness etc. In relation to testimony, KF also quotes: 2 Pet 1:16 . . . “we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts . . . [ESV]” Therefore, theologically, if six-day creation is built around a cleverly devised myth irrespective of the testimony of God in writing and in speaking divine law, such a God is inducing false worship. In other words, Judaeo-Christian scripture, divine law and the creation model is nothing more than a false idol that God/Jesus gave Moses at Sinai, and consensus science is the saviour. I think Rossiter may consider such a valid theological overture for any Judaeo-Christian to ponder on, no matter what scientific interpretation we centre evidence around in terms of that belief system. Darwin blew the brains out of Judaeo-Christian theology, then inserted brainless natural selection under the nebulous terms of agnostic theology. When Christians blow the brains out of Christ, with Christ denying Darwin theology; God help us. mw
StephenB @15, WRT to your questions I expect from Professor Swamidass neither an answer nor an acknowledgement of not having a satisfactory answer. Swamidass comes across as a guy who, on the one hand, is quick to come up with all sorts of poorly reasoned statements, but is smart enough to know when to quit. Allow me to give another example of his incredibly poor reasoning:
Swamidass: The problem for ID, as I see it, is that it currently explains much less than common descent.
Note that he made this baffling statement in the context of a discussion in favor of the compatibility between ID and common descent. So I pointed out the obvious:
It is as if you completely ignore the fact that multiple IDers (VJTorley, Gpuccio and others) in this thread have provided extensive argumentation for the compatibility of ID with common descent. This way ID encompasses any explanatory power common descent may have, and, on top of that, can throw in “intelligent modification” for additional explanatory power. This results in ID explaining much more instead of much less.
Of course Swamidass never responded. Origenes
Origenes @11. Thanks for the comments. Alas, I doubt that Professor Swamidass will ever answer my questions. You certainly did take the candy away from Rossiter and Dennett with your summary of Theism, who in their own way, took the candy away from the TE's by alluding to their slobbering love affair with the naturalists. StephenB
Further to rhampton7, #8: "Fear not evolution. In fact, go further. Catholics should not frown when people say humans evolved from atoms and primates." Fear not, Catholics, the Judaeo-Christian God is telling porkies in terms that He created in six days? As for frowning, such a God must be doing His nut. Catholics are clearly allowed to discuss evolutionism and creationism. The Catholic Church, no matter how weak it may appear on the matter of our Divine origins, can understand divine law, because God/Jesus fulfilled the law, meaning He confirmed the Ten Commandments, crowned with love, and as a Commandment to love God: that is, everything we know about Him/Jesus in terms of such belief. For Catholics, or those wishing to understand more the basis of that faith in terms of scripture, and the current state of Catholic teaching on the matter, the following may be of interest, though there is a cost: http://restoringtruthministries.org/The_Catholic_Teaching_On_Scriptural_Inerrancy.html Or, for 5$ ebook, http://kolbecenter.org/store-2/#!/The-Catholic-Teaching-on-Scriptural-Inerrancy/p/67611255 mw
Hi rhampton7, #8: "Biologically, we see a single evolutionary step every time we see a baby." Yes, in terms of a human evolving through a predetermined and fixed pattern of intelligent designed human shape from round to full form, from conception to death. The material starts fully human material and ends fully human. At no stage was a fish ever used or destroyed for humans to become "fitter." Let's say, according to recapitulation hypothesis, the developmental foetus is at the fish stage in terms of theoretical theistic evolution. First, when does the Divine Spirit enter the developing potential for the child, that is, a particle of our Divine Parent? Which you surely agree, needs no evolving. At the hypothetical fish stage, technically we could abort such if purely fish. In fact, technically we could also eat such a fish. Let us say, the Divine Breath was in such a condensed evolved fish. Why then does not the Saviour in terms of Judaeo-Christianity, save fish? For surely, they are at that instant, divine fish? However, in Judaeo-Christianity belief, God/Jesus said He came down from heaven. That is, instantaneously became part of the soul/Spirit and fully Human at the moment of His incarnation. This is the point Professor Rossiter makes. The divine Has become part of the fabric of being Human, but sinless. Evolutionism then cannot stand. God/Jesus did not use imperceptible steps of theoretical evolution to achieve such ends. That Jesus was a fish and an ape, to be fully human in terms of theistic evolution is theological madness, and must be blasphemy to picture God/Jesus as belonging to quadrumans before His birth. At His resurrection, was that by incremental evolutions He took a chance to reassemble His body from dead matter? At the ascension, was that using theistic evolutionist incremental steps? Then why should God create anything by theistic evolutionary belief? He has the instantaneous power at His Word. He said He is truth, demonstrating miraculous power at His command. mw
Hi Oregenies, # 11: "Arguing against Rossitter and Dennett is as easy as taking candy from a baby." First, take away the 'candy' from the God of Sinai, His words written in stone, a divine law - He created in six days? If under that law, on which a nation was formed round in Sabbath worship is seriously wrong, what does that say of Jesus, who as God in terms of the belief in the Holy Trinity, spoke and wrote that law? What short of worship is worship based on error, that is, according to theistic evolutionists? If the divine law from Sinai is true, nothing in heaven or earth will shift it. If such is wrong in the least, then it must eventually result in no confidence in any part of such scripture, as Professor Rossiter points out in "Peg," and much more. In theological terms he argues the debilitating effects of theistic evolutionism on the Judaeo-Christian faith: no original sin, and no need of a God Saviour. That is, a Creator Saviour who wrote divine law in His divinity, which you imply is easy to take away through belief in theistic evolutionism? What a weak God! mw
StephenB @2. Excellent questions. BTW It is not the case that atheists are able to come up with any valid arguments against theistic evolutionism.
Wayne Rossiter: ... Daniel Dennett (Tufts University professor and one of the “four horsemen” of the New Atheism) stood up in the back and announced that, while atheists are often accused of not seriously engaging academic theology, he had not seen anything that day to convince him “that theology had anything concrete to offer him by way of additional understanding of the world—anything comparable to the insights available from science.” Oddly enough, Dennett and I share this observation with respect to the theology offered by theistic evolutionists. For example, one of the “basics” videos on the BioLogos website (an online hub for theistic evolutionists) tells us, “[We] believe God created the Hawaiian Islands, but also think the scientific description of that process is pretty convincing.” Of course, one can have a scientific description of the process of creating islands without invoking God at all. On this, I’ve challenged BioLogos to explain why the atheist geologist working on such a scientific question should even bother with Christianity? What does Christian theism offer with respect to island formation that the geologist didn’t already have?
Arguing against Rossitter and Dennett is as easy as taking candy from a baby. Here goes: Unlike naturalism, Christian theism can offer a context for the existence of the laws and particles involved and the fine-tuned universe in general. Secondly, unlike naturalism, Christian theism can ground consciousness, rationality, responsible freedom — prerequisites for any scientific research. Origenes
Prof. S. Joshua Swamidass "I am a theistic evolutionist. So are Michael Behe and Michael Denton." It all comes down to the definition of "theistic evolutionist". I would say that I too am a theistic evolutionist. I contend that anyone who holds a UCD position is. However, I am by no stretch a theistic neo-Darwinist. I don't think that Behe or Denton are either. We in ID are often as quick to conflate "evolution" with "neo-Darwin" as the other side is. bFast
@9-- Fear not evolution.
I don't fear evolution, but I do worry about uninformed Catholics who don't know the difference between common descent and the unguided mechanism that is support to drive it from beginning to end. StephenB
A 10-Point Primer on Faith and Science (9) Fear not evolution. In fact, go further. Catholics should not frown when people say humans evolved from atoms and primates. We should add that we evolved from the beginning. Atoms constitute the matter that makes us up, and every atom in our bodies came from the Earth, whose particles seem to have come from supernovas, whose matter and energy probably came from the earliest moments after the Big Bang. Did you ever wonder what path the ever-fluctuating particles of your body traversed in the last 4.5 billion years on Earth and the 13.8 billion years in the universe? Did you ever wonder how many other bodies all the uncountable particles in your body have occupied? (Never mind. That can be gross.) Biologically, we see a single evolutionary step every time we see a baby. Evolution is the progression of a series of events by which living organisms accumulate changes over successive generations due to genetic inheritance and adaptive variation. Every child is genetically like its parents but also genetically unique as an individual. As such, every child responds to his or her environment in unique ways, however slight the differences may be. Environments change over time, further affecting genetic expression. These are facts. But evolutionary science cannot identify a first man, first woman, or original sin committed in a moment, because evolution deals with populations over thousands and millions of years. Expecting evolution to find our first parents is like expecting a bulldozer to find the first two grains of sand on a beach. Not only is it the wrong tool, it is the wrong scientific concept. We do not think of beaches forming one grain of sand at a time. So if Adam and Eve began to live, literally, as a fully grown man and woman through a miraculous act of God, or if they came to exist some other way, science can only shrug and keep on digging. A Catholic can both explore what evolutionary science has to reveal and, simultaneously, believe in the reality of Adam and Eve. What a Catholic, or anyone else, cannot do is expect evolutionary science to find them any more than chemistry or physics can find the exact location of two electrons on your nose. rhampton7
Further to #6: "A supernatural Jesus represents a Divine intervention upon the created world, and flies in the face of science’s explanatory primacy, opening a floodgate to further ascription to the miraculous." mw
See part II: https://shadowofoz.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/if-apes-could-fly-review-of-darwinism-and-natural-theology-chapter-2-r-j-berry/ mw
O’Leary writes: theistic evolutionist Christianity is “justifying Darwin to Christians.” In order to prove Darwin to Christians, Professor Swamidass apparently must have read somewhere, the Banns of Marriage between the Judaeo-Christian God and Darwin. However, Darwin did not even get pass his Introduction without tarring the Judaeo-Christian God as “erroneous” (p. 6 “Origins,” 1859). Darwin developed a form of unholy contempt for Christianity and belief in miracles because they completely undermine his theory. And he ‘knew’ certainly about origins, unlike Yahweh/Christ. Darwin did not want such a union or merger, no more that the Holy Trinity does. In any union of Darwin with Christ, His inspired scripture becomes meaningless. God casts out His own word in favour of a disbeliever! Today, Darwinian science so-called, in theistic evolutionist terms, has become the saviour of the Saviour, God of Sinai! Man o man; scared stiff is Darwinian science by any talk of direct immediate miracles, or perhaps proud of Darwin, certain there are no miracles, or if there is, controlled by Darwinism in theistic terms. In Judaeo-Christian terms, Darwinism is intellectually crucifying the Savour. Biologically, Jesus restored all bodily systems of a four-day dead stinking Lazarus back to life immediately. He brought Himself back to life instantly, further, creating new never seen before species, a human form that could transcend material time and material space to the dimension of the spirit, living in both. Boy, what an evolutionary instantaneous leap, but within the limits of the original image, of a size Darwin could not expect, as that would have destroyed his pet simian theory. A question arises, if a Darwinist Christian acknowledged their God is Jesus (one in essence with the Father and Holy Spirit), the God of Sinai; at Sinai, did such a God/Jesus advocate lies and murder as part of the business to commemorate the seventh day sabbath, which would have formed an unbroken link of murderous blasphemy from Sinai to today? Yes, I do mean murderer. See (Num 15:32-36): note well that scripture. First, God the Father, and hence Jesus God in part and God in whole, asked people to remember He created in six human days (Exod 20:8-11), words which He clearly spoke face to face with Moses; not in riddles, whom Jesus said, “Moses spoke of Me,” validating the divine law of Sinai and Moses, and at the Transfiguration (Num 12:4-9). A divine law, clearly written by the hand of God/Jesus, clearly spoke by the same God, pointing back to Genesis and forward to the Saviour, because Jesus fulfilled divine law, the Prophets and Psalms. Darwin basically said such scripture was not from sane minds: ignorant minds. I am sure Darwin included Jesus in that; portraying the Judaeo-Christian Saviour of unsound mind. Still, surely it is Darwin who is of narrow mind in relation to not believing clear documented historic evidence of miracles? A science that cannot, dare not, acknowledge the truth of the truth of divine law. Therefore, when theistic evolutionist Christians set a precedent to reject a part of divine law, they reject the whole of that divine law, in this case the Ten Commandments. Love God, love His divine law; how can it be otherwise? The Holy Trinity, no doubt reluctantly, but in justice, called for the stoning of a man who had broken the sabbath rules. Why the severity; because that man must have daily witnessed miracles and the awe-inspiring and fearful miracle of historic Sinai. That man God condemned to die, clearly would have seen two lots of daily miracles. A pillar of fire to guard and guide at night, and a pillar of cloud to guide by day. Plus, manna and Quale’s as food each day, except for the Sabbath. Yahweh required the stoning of a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath because the man did not keep to divine instructions when so clearly revealed. Never revealed or observed is common descent, say, of changing a non-frog into a frog, it is imaginary. It is against common sense, let alone the first life form arising from the dead all by itself. Unless, as a theistic evolutionist Christian, the God of Sinai is hijacked, to suit the other master, Darwin. I am not talking about evolution due to stress, environment and such like, when a frog will still be a frog, not become a non-frog. Such has never been observed. Bacteria and guppies are still the same. Yes, six-day creation seems impossible, but then we are not God, so let’s not pretend we know better than a God whom we may profess to believe in. The matter is simple, God is made a murderer by theistic evolutionist Christians. They in turn intellectually ‘murder’ the validity of divine law; strangled with Darwinism. The Holy Trinity through the essence of Yahweh, wrote by His own hand, as the truth, and nothing but the truth, which He said He is (Jn 14:6) and (Jn 17:17), that He created in six-days. If He did not do as He plainly said, He is a duplicitous lawgiver at best. Equal and as reliable as Satan. God dishonouring His word that He created in six days. Therefore, using theistic evolutionary science, elasticated beyond recognition is divine law. Divine law states that God means what He said and wrote. No higher moral authority there can be, in terms of Judaeo-Christianity. Still, in his Introduction, Darwin made “natural selection” a false idol, “convinced” of such a means to create everything. First a God-replacement, later he toned that down. Now let me see, faith is the conviction of things unseen (Heb 11:1). Faith in His word pleases God (v 6), not some form of debilitating science which robs the Son of credibility with the Father and Holy Spirit; who said, He came to fulfil the law, the prophets, and the Psalms—not to destroy. Certainly, Darwinian theistic evolutionist Christianity destroys divine law, scripture and the credibility of the Father and the Son by communicating Darwinism as fact. Still, in an instant, the Holy Spirit enabled everyone to understand the speech of the unlearned Apostles: the same Holy Spirit as at Sinai. At Sinai, the finger of God in divine law, points the way back to Genesis, and in a sense, forward to the Transfiguration, when Christ spoke to Moses the lawgiver through His divine law. At the Transfiguration, an unknown mystery of spiritual and biological transformation formed instantly, when the glory of God operated; Jesus became brighter than the sun. Totally unaccountable in Darwinian terms. Theistic Darwinist Judaeo-Christianity must dishonour the Father’s word at Sinai, whom Jesus is one in essence and present at Sinai. What folly. Darwin rejected Christianity as divinely revealed religion. What, and Christians follow Darwin!!! If such a God is wrong in any part of divine law, He is wrong, and scripture is to no avail. If we have the beast of the simian forever in us, not subject to divine law, then a part of us is forever not subject to divine law. Thus, God created us in such a manner we cannot be saved!!! Christian theistic evolutionists claim God created us via a simian type, and through death after death. Yet, Jesus said He came to save us from death, which makes more mockery of the truth and such scripture. In theistic evolutionary terms, He created us through death, making us better each time! What then the effects of sin? Heavens above, a simian was unclean to touch even under the divine law Jesus gave (Lev 11:27). So God/Jesus created us from unclean animals! Have Judaeo-Christians totally lost the plot; totally lost scripture by the beguilement of Darwinism? From the captivity of Darwinism, needed is a new Exodus. A better truthful broadminded improved science. Or at least, one which will openly acknowledge its limitations and theory deficiencies. What is it afraid off, speaking and upholding scientific truth and integrity? Back to the drawing board: rather, back to Sinai and the truth, who said, to the perfection of evil (Matt 4:4); “we live by every word from the mouth of God:” not by every word from the mouth of the Christ rejecter Darwin. Having read “Oz” and “Square Peg for a Round Hole,” a quote from Professor Wayne Rossiter: “while perhaps unsettling, isn’t it possible that the two simply aren’t compatible?” Possible it is, absolutely. Certainly in terms of a straightforward reading of scripture, and the never ending ways to justify the unjustifiable theory of Darwinism that humans, ‘scientifically,’ come from non humans. Degrading theory, degrading humanity. mw
as to: "Molecules are not miracles, they are very natural composites of atoms." Atoms are not miracles?
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The main originator of Quantum Theory - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)(Of Note: Max Planck was a devoted Christian from early life, and was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death) Delayed time zero in photoemission: New record in time measurement accuracy - June 2010 Excerpt: Although they could confirm the effect qualitatively using complicated computations, they came up with a time offset of only five attoseconds. The cause of this discrepancy may lie in the complexity of the neon atom, which consists, in addition to the nucleus, of ten electrons. "The computational effort required to model such a many-electron system exceeds the computational capacity of today's supercomputers," explains Yakovlev. http://www.physorg.com/news196606514.html Why Science Does Not Disprove God - April 27, 2014 Excerpt: "To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden "wisdom," or structure, or a knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature." Amir D. Aczel - mathematician http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/ Depiction of 'non-particle' atom, http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-flinte/stm15.jpg Theory of Uncertain Principles - (The "Non-Particle" Basis Of Reality) – video 24:00 minute mark https://youtu.be/up4wzY60etI?t=1438 "The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
Feynman said this in regards to the double slit experiment with electrons,
“has in it the heart of quantum mechanics” and “is impos­sible, absolutely impos­sible, to explain in any clas­sical way.” Richard Feynman Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater
I am no expert on information, but aren't molecules carriers of information? Isn't that what the molecules A(denine) G(uanine) C(ytocine) T(hymine) do, carry information? Molecules are not miracles, they are very natural composites of atoms. No matter how we define CSI, as long as we are unable to calculate the amount of CSI in a molecule, how do we know whether it was designed or not? Just asking, I haven't yet seen any example of how to calculate CSI. Cabal
Professor Swamidass
I am a theistic evolutionist. So are Michael Behe and Michael Denton.
Do you really mean to suggest that you are a TE in the same sense as Michael Behe?
I oppose naturalism. Of course there is so much more to the world than nature. I do not seek accommodation with naturalism.
Don't you seek accomodation with naturalism insofar as you embrace methodological naturalism, which is really nothing more than applied metaphysical naturalism? Don't you seek accommodation with naturalism's so-called "science" of evolution, expressed in terms of the Neo-Darwinian paradigm and the proposition that unguided naturalistic causes, acting alone, can drive the macro-evolutionary process from start to finish? If not, you have been awfully quiet about your disagreement.
I oppose ID because I have not found ID arguments convincing. This is not surprising, because I doubt science can demonstrate God’s.
Is that a fact? The defining feature of intelligent causes is their ability to create complex specified information. In our experience, only intelligent agents produce this type of information. Nature acting alone has never been able to do it. This kind of information is found in a DNA molecule. Therefore, among two competing explanations, it is more likely that the information in the molecule is the product of an intelligent cause rather than a natural cause. What is it about that argument that doesn't convince you? StephenB
This article makes no sense. I am a theistic evolutionist. So are Michael Behe and Michael Denton. I oppose naturalism. Of course there is so much more to the world than nature. I do not seek accommodation with naturalism. I oppose ID because I have not found ID arguments convincing. This is not surprising, because I doubt science can demonstrate God's. I find science too limited in this task. So, back to the drawing board. Prof. S. Joshua Swamidass

Leave a Reply