TE has nonexistent theology (?)

[relspace]

Variation certainly produces changes in organisms without selection. But does it produce change in species? Only species change is evolution.
How? How can mutational change that does not result in functional genetic change play any part at all in development?

Variation "under the radar of selection" does produce functional genetic change in the species, which have no survival value whatsoever. I thought this was a well know fact and I don't have examples on hand so I would have to dig to look them up. Species development is not just a one way street it branches constantly (and not just because of differing environmental niches) so death is not the only selector. Species differentiation is as much caused by geographical separation and genetic change without survival value as by the death of weaker members.

OK. This is different. Are you saying that every organism, even bacteria, is capable of intention in some sense?
Do you have any suggestion of how to ascertain the existence and influence of intent relative to the evolution of unicellular organisms?

Yes of course. Living things do things for their own reasons. This is one the emergent qualities of living things as complex systems. They are not completely determined by external factors but maintain internal states which are factors in their behavior.

Are you following in the footsteps of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?

I have been introduced to his work before, but I found it too far outside the mainstream of science to take very seriously. I have been far more influenced by the work of Erich Jantsch, James Gleich, Ilya Prigogine and quantum physics.

Or do you agree this is a philosophical hypothesis that cannot be subjected to scientific testing? In any case, that you do believe this provides some basis for your reasoning. It is not a factor I would have considered on the basis of science alone.

I hope you have no illusion here that this kind of discussion we are having here can be called science. It is at most meta-science, talking about the meaning and implications of science. It is philosophy. If you want to restrict yourself to science, I would suggest a university (or at least a scientific forum like thescienceforum.com). The basic facts are too obvious to bother testing. Everything about living oranisms is behavior according to internal states and doing things for its own reasons rather than the effects of its evironment. It part of the meaning of the word alive apart from the silly reduction of life to incidental properties in its traditional definitions.

Dependence on variation does not take away the role of selection as the directing and driving force of evolution. Variation alone would lead to massive genetic randomization and extinction of the species.

It might seem so and some people see this as the future of the human race. But actually it is another stage of evolution where the technology of the community compensates and becomes a part of the evolution of the species, as it did in the evolution of multicelular organisms and in the evolution of the eukariotic cell before that and I believe many time before that as well extending to a time before there was any DNA.

This line of reasoning derives from what you said earlier about intent as a characteristic of all living beings. Your perspective seems to be that of a Bergsonian elan vital , which was a popular and attractive philosophy. But such innate qualities of living substance have not been shown to exist on a scientific basis.

Now you are being insulting. Not all philosophy is stupid. Science is a very narrow way of looking at the world. It must remain so because that is part of the formula for its success. By restricting itself to mathematical descriptions (in the case of the hard sciences like physics) or a least to testable hypotheses, science can uncover a great deal of truth. But to think that this is the totality of reality is quite absurd and to restrict ourselves to it is a debilitating blindness. Religion sees in the most important matters where science is blind, but science and religion alone leave us with a rather disjointed reality, and it is the role of philosophy to seal the breach. The difference between us TE and the YEC is our willingness to extend our philosophical inquiries beyond the limits of theology and scripture all the way to the borders of science and let science inform our understanding. Perhaps you choose to leave your world disjointed only allowing science to inform your theology. But science can inform phiolosphy as well and fill the gap between between theology and science for a more complete understanding of the world around us.

Whether they can be still considered from a metaphysical perspective is another question, and an intriguing one. However, since evolution is science, IMO it would be best to keep the metaphysical question separate from the scientific ones.

You mistaken. This is not the biology department of a university or even a science forum. We were discussing whether TEists have a theology. But life is hard compartmentalize and questions connecting science and theology will tend to run amok of philosophical questions. But I find your pretense that this is a scientific discussion to be hilarious.

I don't know that death has any role in development. This smacks of another creationist distortion of how evolution works.

Now you are just kidding yourself. In the science forum under Biology someone put forward the opinion that the direction of human evolution was (due to increased contact between people all over the world) an increase in resistance to disease. I said this was a rather callous point of view, because the implication is obvious. Such resistance to disease by the evolution of mankind can only happen as a result of catastrophic epidemics and a decimation of the human population of the world. You may prefer the euphemism "natural selection" but it is death pure and simple. And if you do not understand that, then you do not understand evolution at all.

 

[gluadys]

Variation "under the radar of selection" does produce functional genetic change in the species, which have no survival value whatsoever. I thought this was a well know fact and I don't have examples on hand so I would have to dig to look them up.

Are you speaking of neutral changes such as variation in colour? Such changes are often of no survival value. But that does not put them under the radar of natural selection. Colour, for example, can become advantageous as camouflage or mimicry.

But even when there is no survival value involved, one such neutral value can displace another. I agree that neutral evolution (genetic drift) is a fact. Not every change is directed toward adaptation.

But even the variations involved in neutral evolution are exposed to natural selection and could be potentially adaptive.

So I am still somewhat mystified as to how any functional change could not be selectable, even if it is currently neutral in survival value.

If that is your claim (and I am not sure it is) then you will need to dig up examples for me.

Species development is not just a one way street it branches constantly (and not just because of differing environmental niches) so death is not the only selector.

You mean evolution is cladistic? A bush not a ladder? Believe me, I have been repeating that to creationists till I am blue in the face.

But I don't know what you mean by death being a selector. All living things die.

Species differentiation is as much caused by geographical separation and genetic change without survival value as by the death of weaker members.

Agreed.

Yes of course. Living things do things for their own reasons. This is one the emergent qualities of living things as complex systems. They are not completely determined by external factors but maintain internal states which are factors in their behavior.

That living things maintain internal states which are factors in their behaviour, I agree. That they do so intentionally is what I question. I have no problem with emergent qualities. I am not a reductionist. But to me, intentionality implies a level of consciousness that is not emergent until well after the emergence of life--by some billions of years.

This may be a matter of definition. Would you like to clarify what you mean by "intent"? How would the concept apply to an amoeba? Or a mushroom?

I have been introduced to his work before, but I found it too far outside the mainstream of science to take very seriously. I have been far more influenced by the work of Erich Jantsch, James Gleich, Ilya Prigogine and quantum physics.

The works of de Chardin that I have read were intentionally theological. I see you are coming at this primarily from a physics background. Not always the best approach to biology. You may be focusing overmuch on molecular biology and biochemistry to observe the workings of evolution at an organismic and population level.

I hope you have no illusion here that this kind of discussion we are having here can be called science. It is at most meta-science, talking about the meaning and implications of science. It is philosophy.

No, I have no illusions. Most of the time here we speak philosophically and theologically. But given that many objections to evolution are based on lack of information and mis-information about the science, improving and correcting scientific knowledge is important. Knowing what is and isn't science is important. That evolution is atheistic is not a scientific statement, though many think it is. Of course, it is not a true statement either, even philosophically.

Everything about living oranisms is behavior according to internal states and doing things for its own reasons rather than the effects of its evironment. It part of the meaning of the word alive apart from the silly reduction of life to incidental properties in its traditional definitions.

Well, I never heard before that "intention" is part of the meaning of the word "alive". For me, that implies self-awareness, a quality we do not usually associate with animals, much less plants, fungi or bacteria. So, I do invite you again to clarify what you mean by "intention" as a quality of all living things, not just humans and perhaps a few other complex animals.

Btw--have you read any process theology? Some of their thinking seems to be along the same line as yours.

It might seem so and some people see this as the future of the human race. But actually it is another stage of evolution where the technology of the community compensates and becomes a part of the evolution of the species, as it did in the evolution of multicelular organisms and in the evolution of the eukariotic cell before that and I believe many time before that as well extending to a time before there was any DNA.

Well, for humans we have another stage in civilization and technology. But that does not apply to non-human species--except, perhaps, those that humans apply their technology to.

Now you are being insulting. Not all philosophy is stupid.

Yikes! Why the hostile reaction all of a sudden? I never said, nor intentionally implied, that philosophy is stupid. I just clarified that some philosophical concepts are not, and maybe cannot be, transferable into scientific concepts. That doesn't make the philosophical concept stupid or in any way inferior to the scientific concept.

Science is a very narrow way of looking at the world. It must remain so because that is part of the formula for its success. By restricting itself to mathematical descriptions (in the case of the hard sciences like physics) or a least to testable hypotheses, science can uncover a great deal of truth. But to think that this is the totality of reality is quite absurd and to restrict ourselves to it is a debilitating blindness.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly!

Religion sees in the most important matters where science is blind, but science and religion alone leave us with a rather disjointed reality, and it is the role of philosophy to seal the breach.

Interesting idea. Philosophy sealing the breach between religion and science. I am not sure I would see this as THE role of philosophy, but I can see it as A role.

One thing we do lack in this forum are people who are basically philosophers. Some are good theologians, but while theology may be an aspect of philosophy, its not quite the same thing. I am more a theologian than a philosopher myself, and more a philosopher than a scientist. Actually, I am not a scientist at all--just an interested layperson.

The difference between us TE and the YEC is our willingness to extend our philosophical inquiries beyond the limits of theology and scripture all the way to the borders of science and let science inform our understanding. .... But science can inform phiolosphy as well and fill the gap between between theology and science for a more complete understanding of the world around us.

Agreed.

You mistaken. This is not the biology department of a university or even a science forum. We were discussing whether TEists have a theology. But life is hard compartmentalize and questions connecting science and theology will tend to run amok of philosophical questions. But I find your pretense that this is a scientific discussion to be hilarious.

Sorry, I was not clear. I didn't mean to suggest that a discussion on metaphysics is unwelcome. Just that it is important for clarity to maintain the boundaries between science and philosophy. I saw some of your statements as transgressing those boundaries and importing metaphysics into science.

Now you are just kidding yourself. In the science forum under Biology someone put forward the opinion that the direction of human evolution was (due to increased contact between people all over the world) an increase in resistance to disease. I said this was a rather callous point of view, because the implication is obvious. Such resistance to disease by the evolution of mankind can only happen as a result of catastrophic epidemics and a decimation of the human population of the world. You may prefer the euphemism "natural selection" but it is death pure and simple. And if you do not understand that, then you do not understand evolution at all.

In this particular scenario, there would be a lot of premature death. But it is not the only evolutionary scenario or even the most common. Evolution can occur without any premature death at all.

We can also state two other things.
1. That which dies does not contribute to evolution. Evolution depends on survival, not death.
2. All living things eventually die. Most species have become extinct and we can expect that most, perhaps all, species living today will become extinct in the future. That which applies to all is not a selector.

 

[relspace]

By the way gluadys, I enjoy the conversation. I admired your explanation of post-modernism. And in fact comments by both you and shernren have inspired my respect for you both. So I hope this is not forgotten when our "discussion" becomes a little heated.

Are you speaking of neutral changes such as variation in colour? Such changes are often of no survival value. But that does not put them under the radar of natural selection. Colour, for example, can become advantageous as camouflage or mimicry.

But even when there is no survival value involved, one such neutral value can displace another. I agree that neutral evolution (genetic drift) is a fact. Not every change is directed toward adaptation.

But even the variations involved in neutral evolution are exposed to natural selection and could be potentially adaptive.

Yes indeed. This is called serendipity. Variations which are initially just creative and without survival value can eventually create conditions in which they evetually become an advantage in survival. But this just proves point that it is variation and not selection which drives evolution.

So I am still somewhat mystified as to how any functional change could not be selectable, even if it is currently neutral in survival value.

You mean evolution is cladistic? A bush not a ladder? Believe me, I have been repeating that to creationists till I am blue in the face.

not selectable??????? Not selected is all I said. If it does not have survival value then it is a product of variation only and not a product of natural selection. I have little doubt that you have been repeating this, you just have to remember to breathe when you do, that should keep your complexion a healthy color. But you have taught me a new word anyway: "cladistic".

But I don't know what you mean by death being a selector. All living things die.
1. That which dies does not contribute to evolution. Evolution depends on survival, not death.
2. All living things eventually die. Most species have become extinct and we can expect that most, perhaps all, species living today will become extinct in the future. That which applies to all is not a selector.

Come come. You know better than that. You and I both know that it is death before reproduction that matters most. But depending on the organism, even longevity can be a positive factor in the gene pool, Not only by increased opportunities for reproduction but in the aid provided to family members.
Goodness gracious , the fact that selection equals death really makes you squirm. But you can squirm all you like. It does not change the facts. If evolution driven by death bothers you so much then consider the idea of evolution driven by creativity (variation). Evolutions depends mostly on variation, which is why bacteria have evolved mechanisms to bypass their genetic repair machinery to let mutations occasionally pass through unfixed. Natural selection (death) is not really a force at all. Natrual selection is just recognition of the fact that the creativity of living things is bound to find things which give them advantages in the struggle to survive in a dangerous and changing environment. From point of view you can actually equate natural section with the ability that living things have called learning.

That living things maintain internal states which are factors in their behaviour, I agree. That they do so intentionally is what I question. I have no problem with emergent qualities. I am not a reductionist. But to me, intentionality implies a level of consciousness that is not emergent until well after the emergence of life--by some billions of years.

This may be a matter of definition. Would you like to clarify what you mean by "intent"? How would the concept apply to an amoeba? Or a mushroom?

Well, I never heard before that "intention" is part of the meaning of the word "alive". For me, that implies self-awareness, a quality we do not usually associate with animals, much less plants, fungi or bacteria. So, I do invite you again to clarify what you mean by "intention" as a quality of all living things, not just humans and perhaps a few other complex animals.

But define intentionality is just what I did. Once you take away our species centered predjudices, intent is just what I said. It is intent when a living thing does something by design rather than by chance, when it does things for its own reason. And put concretely this just means that its actions are partially determined by internal states. We call our internal states thoughts and feelings, but it is by acting on these internal states that makes our actions intentional.

Yes lets take an amoeba. It attacks an absorbs its prey. How? It is sensitive to environment and reacts to the presence of prey by changing its own structure in order to draw the prey into a pocket. Is this an accident? Of course not. It has good reason. It does so to absorb the energy and materials of it prey in order to use these to maintain, reinforce and reproduce its own structure in defiance of the wear and tear of entropy. It absorbs its prey by intent. This pattern is basic to all living systems including species. The species is a living system on a larger time scale. The species as a whole absorbs energy from the environment to reinforce, reproduce and maintain its own particular genetic structure, it responds adaptively to environmental changes. It maintains itself by changing its structure to compensate for environmental changes just as individual organisms do. It is not accidental. It is intentional. Species are conscious, not by our standard perhaps, because our sensitivity to the environment and ability to respond is billions times more complex, and on a vastly shorter time scale. You see the same pattern in all living things. All life is qualitatively the same process. We may give our activities and characteristics different names like consciousness, but I believe the difference is really only quantitative.

This is not to say that I think there is no difference at all between man and animals, for there is an important difference.

I see you are coming at this primarily from a physics background. Not always the best approach to biology. You may be focusing overmuch on molecular biology and biochemistry to observe the workings of evolution at an organismic and population level.

Definitely. My specialty is the metaphysical implications of contemporary physics, with a BS in math, and MDiv in ministry and an MS in physics. But perhaps you should read "The Self Organizing Universe" by Erich Jantsch, for perhaps them you will see the connection to biology. I believe that Chaotic Dynamics, which has origins in Biology just as much as it does in physics and a dozen other disciplines, is the key to the next great leap forward in our understanding the nature of living things.

Most of the time here we speak philosophically and theologically. But given that many objections to evolution are based on lack of information and mis-information about the science, improving and correcting scientific knowledge is important. Knowing what is and isn't science is important. That evolution is atheistic is not a scientific statement, though many think it is. Of course, it is not a true statement either, even philosophically.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Indeed, I see very little difference between how atheists and creationists use science as a tool of rhetoric.

Btw--have you read any process theology? Some of their thinking seems to be along the same line as yours.

I have only read the ontology of Alfred North Whitehead upon which it is based. I criticized it greatly because I despise it. It is too Platonic (which I also despise). I am a strong supporter of Aristotlean ontology and metaphysics, which I admire as way ahead of its time. Although I do greatly modify Aristotle's metaphysics based on the implications of modern physics. For example, I believe that energy (an abstraction from the physics concept of energy) is a better description of the "substance" of being, and see the growing role of geometric concepts in physics as a illustration of Aristotles idea of "form".

Well, for humans we have another stage in civilization and technology. But that does not apply to non-human species--except, perhaps, those that humans apply their technology to.

But think of the development of multicellular organisms. They protect their weaker members and allow differentiation and specialization compensating for the growing inability of its individual members to survive with the the transport of materials in the blood stream, chemical communication by special complex molecules called hormones, defense strategies like fingernails, advance warning strategies in ears and eyes and complex information processing in a nervous system. This is what I call technology and a very advanced degree of community organization as well.

Yikes! Why the hostile reaction all of a sudden? I never said, nor intentionally implied, that philosophy is stupid. I just clarified that some philosophical concepts are not, and maybe cannot be, transferable into scientific concepts. That doesn't make the philosophical concept stupid or in any way inferior to the scientific concept.

Ok, perhaps it is just me who thinks that particular philosophy is stupid, and so I did not like being compared to it. You must admit, however, that philosophy is terribly outdated.

Interesting idea. Philosophy sealing the breach between religion and science. I am not sure I would see this as THE role of philosophy, but I can see it as A role.

Well science has its origins in philosophy and is a specialization. Some European countries still call it natural philosophy. So unspecialized philosophy remains free to go beyond the boundaries of this specialization while being informed by the achievements of science as well. I am not saying that philosophy can heal breach created by this rejection of science by fundamentalist religious groups. I am saying that by being bound by neither the limitations of theology to scripture nor by the limitations of science, it is free to seek understanding of the world as a whole (informed by both science and theology).

One thing we do lack in this forum are people who are basically philosophers. Some are good theologians, but while theology may be an aspect of philosophy, its not quite the same thing. I am more a theologian than a philosopher myself, and more a philosopher than a scientist. Actually, I am not a scientist at all--just an interested layperson.

I have qualifications in all three. But while science is primarily the work of the scientific community (which the academic scientific community clearly dominates), it would be a mistake to think that philosophy is in any way restricted to the work of the academic philosophy community. Metaphysics, for example, having been recognized as needing to be informed by physics has been abandoned by academic philosophy completely and is mostly represented by the writings of physicists like Paul Davies, Stephen Hawkings and Brian Greene. So although some university classes in philosophy can be invaluable in doing a better job at it, philosophy is something that anyone can do. In fact some of my favorite philosophers are science fiction and fantasy writers (lol).

Sorry, I was not clear. I didn't mean to suggest that a discussion on metaphysics is unwelcome. Just that it is important for clarity to maintain the boundaries between science and philosophy. I saw some of your statements as transgressing those boundaries and importing metaphysics into science.

With my educational background I am very well aware of the boundary and guard it quite diligently. My qualifications in Biology are limited to High School and Scientific American articles, so I would never pretend to a real scientific discussion in Biology. I consider discussions about Biology and the main ideas of evolution in a forum like this to be popular eduacational Biology at best which I consider to be little more than meta-Biology (philosophy about Biology). I have been a part of physics research I think would immediately recognize a similar environment in the science of Biology.

In this particular scenario, there would be a lot of premature death. But it is not the only evolutionary scenario or even the most common. Evolution can occur without any premature death at all.

Not really. The slow incremental model is really inadequate. Most evolutionary change occurs more rapidly in small populations on the brink of extinction. This is why the gaps in the fossil record are natural and expected. Large gene pools stablize the species (and that is where we get most of our fossils). There is nothing like a sudden freeze (for example) wiping out 98% of a population of a species to strongly bias a gene pool of that species towards characteristics which can endure the cold. This is usually reinforced in the next generation when only in the offspring where these characterstics breed true continue to survive. Evolution is a cruel process. The miracle is that the species survives such catastophes at all.

 

[gluadys]

Getting back to the so-called "non-existent" theology of TEs, I was interested by the series of essays in the following link.


http://www.christianforums.com/t2977298-behe-and-fellow-faculty-members-on-id.html

Most deal with the question "is id science?" But the last two approach the question of the theology of id and its inadequacy as Christian theology.

To me, these present some very solid TE theology.

 

[gluadys]

By the way gluadys, I enjoy the conversation. I admired your explanation of post-modernism. And in fact comments by both you and shernren have inspired my respect for you both. So I hope this is not forgotten when our "discussion" becomes a little heated.

Thank you. The feeling is mutual.

Yes indeed. This is called serendipity. Variations which are initially just creative and without survival value can eventually create conditions in which they evetually become an advantage in survival. But this just proves point that it is variation and not selection which drives evolution.

The scientific term is "pre-adaptation". But you are truly going far afield here. Not only claiming that organisms intentionally direct the evolution of their internal states, but also the environmental conditions in which these internal states become advantageous!

Now, this is not to say that organisms do not affect environmental conditions. Every organism, every species, is part of the environment of other organisms and other species. Adaptation includes not only adaptation to environmental features such as temperature, salinity and other physical and climatological conditions, but also to the presence and behaviour of other species. So we get co-evolution (e.g. insects and flowers) and predator-prey arms races and even intra-species arms races e.g. trees competing for sunlight by increasing their height.

But I don't see that this requires conscious intent. Or that conscious intent is even capable of creating these changes. We are all aware that there is a significant difference between what I will to do and what I can do. Only in God is intent and action identical.

not selectable??????? Not selected is all I said. If it does not have survival value then it is a product of variation only and not a product of natural selection. I have little doubt that you have been repeating this, you just have to remember to breathe when you do, that should keep your complexion a healthy color. But you have taught me a new word anyway: "cladistic".

What you are overlooking is that there are several types of selection, including "random selection" commonly called "genetic drift". "Natural selection" strictly speaking, refers to adaptive selection, but sometimes refers more broadly to all forms of selection.

Come come. You know better than that. You and I both know that it is death before reproduction that matters most.

Now, we are getting somewhere. It is not death per se that is the selector. It is death before reproduction or premature death. Even this is not entirely true. As you point out:

But depending on the organism, even longevity can be a positive factor in the gene pool, Not only by increased opportunities for reproduction but in the aid provided to family members.​

Also, premature death does not exclude reproduction per se. It can refer to death before the completion of the reproductive cycle. Consider that rabbits may bear several litters per year over 3-5 years for a total of 1-2 dozen litters. In this scenario, a female who was taken by a predator after bearing only 3 litters has died prematurely even though she has reproduced. Her genetic contribution to the next generation's gene pool is proportionately less than her sister's who completes her full reproductive cycle before death.

Finally, premature death need not enter the picture at all. Let us say that both sister rabbits complete their reproductive cycle, but that sister A gives birth, on average, to 3 kits per litter and sister B gives birth to 5 kits per litter. Again, sister A contributes proportionately less to the next generation's gene pool than sister B.

This is the essence of evolution: the proportional contribution to the next generation's gene pool. Not death or premature death per se. Premature death usually plays a significant role in determining an organism's proportional contribution to the next generation's gene pool, either eliminating the contribution altogether (no reproduction before death) or limiting it. But even without premature death, organisms will make varying contributions to the gene pool of the next generation. And that is all that is necessary for evolution to take place.

Goodness gracious , the fact that selection equals death really makes you squirm. But you can squirm all you like. It does not change the facts.

And the fact is that premature death is not essential to evolution. What is essential is a variance in the contribution of different parents to the gene pool of the species in the next generation.

I am not arguing that in most situations premature death is not the principal conditioning factor in blocking or limiting an organism's contribution to the gene pool of the next generation. Just that it is not fundamentally essential. With or without premature death, the contribution of various organisms to the next generation's gene pool will differ. And that difference in genetic contribution is what makes for evolution.

If evolution driven by death bothers you so much then consider the idea of evolution driven by creativity (variation). Evolutions depends mostly on variation, which is why bacteria have evolved mechanisms to bypass their genetic repair machinery to let mutations occasionally pass through unfixed. Natural selection (death) is not really a force at all. Natrual selection is just recognition of the fact that the creativity of living things is bound to find things which give them advantages in the struggle to survive in a dangerous and changing environment. From point of view you can actually equate natural section with the ability that living things have called learning.

Have your read Dawkins? Especially Climbing Mount Improbable. What you are saying reminds me of his concept of exploring design space.

But define intentionality is just what I did. Once you take away our species centered predjudices, intent is just what I said. It is intent when a living thing does something by design rather than by chance, when it does things for its own reason. And put concretely this just means that its actions are partially determined by internal states. We call our internal states thoughts and feelings, but it is by acting on these internal states that makes our actions intentional.

Yes lets take an amoeba. ... You see the same pattern in all living things. All life is qualitatively the same process. We may give our activities and characteristics different names like consciousness, but I believe the difference is really only quantitative.

I hear you. I guess it is a question of whether I am indulging in "species centered prejudices" or you are indulging in anthropomorphism.

I think one of the gifts of evolution is to take us away from species-centered prejudices.


I would also suggest that it is not scientifically possible to determine whether any organism, including a human being, acts from sub-concious, built-in instincts or free intent. I don't think we can falsify the idea that we actually do not have any free will and all our actions are determined by prior causes.

That throws the whole question into the realm of meta-physics. (I hope you agree with that.) And as a philosophical concept, I don't have a problem with attributing intent on some level not only to all living things but to all existence from sub-atomic particles at the quantum level to the whole planet (Gaia hypothesis) and even potentially to the cosmos itself.

I think of the cosmos as quasi-organic and reject the Newtonian mechanistic model. A dynamic quasi-organic model seems to me to be more consistent with a dynamic, creative God, whose characteristics are part of all he creates.

Definitely. My specialty is the metaphysical implications of contemporary physics, with a BS in math, and MDiv in ministry and an MS in physics. But perhaps you should read "The Self Organizing Universe" by Erich Jantsch, for perhaps them you will see the connection to biology. I believe that Chaotic Dynamics, which has origins in Biology just as much as it does in physics and a dozen other disciplines, is the key to the next great leap forward in our understanding the nature of living things.

I'll keep these recommendations in mind. I am definitely interested in learning more about Chaotic Dynamics. Former physicist turned theologian, John Polkinghorne, considers Chaos theory theologically significant. Are you familiar with his writing?

Here is a sample.

It is too Platonic (which I also despise).

Oh, a philosophical soulmate! I think the impact of Platonism on early Christian theology was most detrimental. Like you, I much prefer the nominalist approach of Aristotle, with the modifications you suggest.

Of course, if one must attach labels, my true philosophical orientation is existentialist (Christian version a la Kierkegaard and Karl Barth, not Sartre or Heidegger.)

But think of the development of multicellular organisms. They protect their weaker members and allow differentiation and specialization compensating for the growing inability of its individual members to survive with the the transport of materials in the blood stream, chemical communication by special complex molecules called hormones, defense strategies like fingernails, advance warning strategies in ears and eyes and complex information processing in a nervous system. This is what I call technology and a very advanced degree of community organization as well.

I take the point on organic technology, but I can't see referring to some cells as being weaker than others. They are all mutually interdependent.

Ok, perhaps it is just me who thinks that particular philosophy is stupid, and so I did not like being compared to it. You must admit, however, that philosophy is terribly outdated.

Bergson? True, very outdated.

I am saying that by being bound by neither the limitations of theology to scripture nor by the limitations of science, [philosophy]is free to seek understanding of the world as a whole (informed by both science and theology).

Agreed.

I have qualifications in all three. But while science is primarily the work of the scientific community (which the academic scientific community clearly dominates), it would be a mistake to think that philosophy is in any way restricted to the work of the academic philosophy community.

And apart from a long-ago Philosophy 101, I have academic qualifications in none. But I agree with you that philosophy (and theology) are not restricted to the academic community as science is. That is why I feel free to call myself a theologian and a philosopher, but not a scientist--although I have a considerable depth of self-education in all three fields.

In fact some of my favorite philosophers are science fiction and fantasy writers (lol).

Same here. We are soul-mates!

I consider discussions about Biology and the main ideas of evolution in a forum like this to be popular eduacational Biology at best which I consider to be little more than meta-Biology (philosophy about Biology).

A good description of the conversations here.

The slow incremental model is really inadequate. Most evolutionary change occurs more rapidly in small populations on the brink of extinction.

This is the point Gould made in introducing punctuated equilibrium. Often overlooked however is the fact that punk eek is still dependent on the incremental model, just not a slow one. Saltation has no place in any evolutionary model.

This is why the gaps in the fossil record are natural and expected. Large gene pools stablize the species (and that is where we get most of our fossils). There is nothing like a sudden freeze (for example) wiping out 98% of a population of a species to strongly bias a gene pool of that species towards characteristics which can endure the cold. This is usually reinforced in the next generation when only in the offspring where these characterstics breed true continue to survive.

Sounds right.

Evolution is a cruel process.

Isn't that a species-centred value judgment?

The miracle is that the species survives such catastophes at all.

True, but life is damnably persistent. Isn't it marvellous?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

With that said, how does TE theology work? God told us, quite literally (I just spent some time defending this on another thread), that he created the world in 6 days, with man being created -- from dust -- on the 6th day.

A friend of mine was looking suspiciously at his wife when she walked to get drinks from the bar with a mutual friend of ours, I kicked him in the shins (sort of gently) and gave him a questioning look.

He repeated some gossip a "friend" had passed on to him.
I said, "You are behaving like Othello and if you keep it up I'll rip you a new one!"



Would the above prove that I think Othello was a real person?
If I don't believe Othello was real, would the above make me a liar?

Would a story about a princess defeating a dragon have nearly the same impact if it were not well known that in most stories princesses had to be rescued by knights in shining armor from dragons?

As far as I can see, if Genesis 1-11 isn't historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact, there is no reason to be a Christian, none of us need saving, Jesus was a liar and a charletan, []Yes, I'm making big logical jumps, but that is the end conclusion from a logical outworking of the fuller theory of Darwinian evolution.

Why stop there? why not join Dad and declare that the Earth has never revolved?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

There are reasons. The primary reason is: sola scriptura.

Do you know what that means?
Historically?

Do you know where Scripture came from, how the Canon was chosen?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Yes, the poll results are interesting, particularly how (so far) 100% of the voters believe Jesus performed miracles, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus will later raise more people from the dead, and how 11 out of 12 people believe all scripture is God's divine inspiration.

Do TEs understand that belief in the fact of Jesus's historical miracles and ressurection constitute examples where God has suspended His natural laws?

Yes.

This is an affront to materialistic Science!

I'm not sure what "materialistic Science" is, but it certainly isn't a affront to Science.

This is also the belief that separates Christians from atheists and other non-Christians.

true

Why then do TEs excercise disbelief when it comes to Genesis 1-11? TEs already believe God can suspend natural laws. TEs also believe scripture is God-breathed. God is also incapable of lying! Why then the inconsistency of beliefs regarding Genesis?

What disbelief?
What inconsistancy?

There is pretty good historical evidence that a Rabbi named Jesus lived in the 1st Century CE and that a cult grew up around his teachings that eventually became the Christian Church. (Maier, A Marginal Jew, which regretably I have not read all the way through, is a good source for this.)

Physical evidence of his miracles are not expected, how do you determine whether water was turned into wine? At all, much less at this late date?

The continued existance of the church after his death, testimony in words and action by others and the occasional small, still voice... and the overwhelming awe at his works... provides me with the evidence I need to continue in my faith.

The utter lack of evidence for a global flood,
the overwhelming evidence against one,
the utter lack in the solar neighborhood of short lived radionuclides which don't have a continuous production source,
while they exist elsewhere in the galaxy...
varves,
tree rings,
the fact that our Chromosome 2 looks like chimps' 2 and 3 glued together...
Yunis, Jorge, and Om Prakash. "The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy". Science, vol. 215, 19 March, 1982, pp. 1527 & 1528, figs. 2. & 3, © 1980 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chromcom.html
Dual jawbones in reptile mammal transition at the right place in the fossil record ...

All these things, all this evidence, convinces me that Gen 1 is not meant to be read literally.

 

[relspace]

Whew! I think I just spent practically the whole day on this.

The scientific term is "pre-adaptation". But you are truly going far afield here. Not only claiming that organisms intentionally direct the evolution of their internal states, but also the environmental conditions in which these internal states become advantageous!

Now, this is not to say that organisms do not affect environmental conditions. Every organism, every species, is part of the environment of other organisms and other species. Adaptation includes not only adaptation to environmental features such as temperature, salinity and other physical and climatological conditions, but also to the presence and behaviour of other species. So we get co-evolution (e.g. insects and flowers) and predator-prey arms races and even intra-species arms races e.g. trees competing for sunlight by increasing their height.

This is the point Gould made in introducing punctuated equilibrium. Often overlooked however is the fact that punk eek is still dependent on the incremental model, just not a slow one. Saltation has no place in any evolutionary model.

You are going to insist on educating me aren't you. "pre-adaptation", OK. But you are reading to heavily into what I said. I meant no more than your subsequent elaboration.

I had to look up "saltation", and I have to agree.

Finally, premature death need not enter the picture at all. Let us say that both sister rabbits complete their reproductive cycle, but that sister A gives birth, on average, to 3 kits per litter and sister B gives birth to 5 kits per litter. Again, sister A contributes proportionately less to the next generation's gene pool than sister B.

Agreed. I have never associated this with the term, "natural selection" before, but OK.

"Natural selection" strictly speaking, refers to adaptive selection, but sometimes refers more broadly to all forms of selection.

This is the essence of evolution: the proportional contribution to the next generation's gene pool. Not death or premature death per se. Premature death usually plays a significant role in determining an organism's proportional contribution to the next generation's gene pool, either eliminating the contribution altogether (no reproduction before death) or limiting it. But even without premature death, organisms will make varying contributions to the gene pool of the next generation. And that is all that is necessary for evolution to take place.

And the fact is that premature death is not essential to evolution. What is essential is a variance in the contribution of different parents to the gene pool of the species in the next generation.

I am not arguing that in most situations premature death is not the principal conditioning factor in blocking or limiting an organism's contribution to the gene pool of the next generation. Just that it is not fundamentally essential. With or without premature death, the contribution of various organisms to the next generation's gene pool will differ. And that difference in genetic contribution is what makes for evolution.

Sorry but I think you go to far. Suppose I said that natural selection is not essential to evolution but that variation suffices. I don't because that is going to far in precisely the same way that you are now. In principle and in some sense there is truth to these claims "that premature death is not essential" and "that natural selection is not essential", but in practice niether is true. The vast majority of evolutionary progress depends on premature death. I will grant your point that there is a little more to natural selection than just premature death while "stubbornly" maintaining my claim that natural selection is still the guiding principle of evolution while variation is its driving force.

What you are overlooking is that there are several types of selection, including "random selection" commonly called "genetic drift".

You know this comment is very interesting and I think it reveals a hidden difference in bias, and I was half way through my first reaction to your statement when I realized this:

"But I don't think I can give this one to you. I have no doubt that there is a kind of random selection due to circumstantial concidence. In fact, I would see the hand of God in this. But ..."

Eureka! This is why you keep arguing that natural selection is the driving force of evolution! In your mind you are equating natural selection with the hand of God.

Well I cannot argue with something like that. But I think you are missing something important and I am not sure if and how I can explain it to you, but it relates to other parts of our discussion so I shall leave it for now.

But I don't see that this requires conscious intent. Or that conscious intent is even capable of creating these changes. We are all aware that there is a significant difference between what I will to do and what I can do. Only in God is intent and action identical.

"Conscious" is a word often thrown around without really knowing what it means. I believe that it is just a label for our experience of features of a universal type of process which is common to all living things. This process always includes a reactive sensitivity to the environment (which in our case we label as awareness). And this reactive sensitivity always has an informational feedback-loop (which in our case we label as self-awareness). Living thing must always react to changes in internal states (in addition to external stimuli) in order to carry out maintenance and repair.

I hear you. I guess it is a question of whether I am indulging in "species centered prejudices" or you are indulging in anthropomorphism.

Yes indeed it does! And this relies somewhat on the discussion which follows.

I would also suggest that it is not scientifically possible to determine whether any organism, including a human being, acts from sub-concious, built-in instincts or free intent. I don't think we can falsify the idea that we actually do not have any free will and all our actions are determined by prior causes.

You are only partially right because your second statement is completely wrong. This is the tragedy of the death of metaphysics after the failure of logical positivism. Because of this the assumptions and premises built on the metaphysical conception of reality relying on outdated nineteenth century physics continues unquestioned. Materialistic determinism is dead. Advances in quantum physics and chaos science make this a certainty. The first is the work of John Stewart Bell which proved once and for all that Einstein and the hidden variable hypothesis is wrong. There are events which have no cause which can be found in the locally real (Minkowsky structured) space-time of physics. Perhaps there are causes outside the reality which physics describes but there are none within. Furthermore Schrodinger's hypothesis that quantum indeterminacy has no impact on living systems has also been disproven by Ilya Prigogine's work in choaotic dynamics.

So you are correct about the scientific impossiblitities, because causality, in this case, if it exists, lies outside the ability of science to quantify and test. But it is absolutely certain that science can no longer claim an exclusive chain of causality between the activity of living things and the initial conditions of the universe. For coincidentally the very process which I have been describing as common to all living things is precisely where chaotic dyanamics shows that the failure of determinism in quantum wave collapse must play a causal role in choosing the path of events in the nonlinear phenomenon of bifurcation.

That throws the whole question into the realm of meta-physics. (I hope you agree with that.) And as a philosophical concept, I don't have a problem with attributing intent on some level not only to all living things but to all existence from sub-atomic particles at the quantum level to the whole planet (Gaia hypothesis) and even potentially to the cosmos itself.

Hold on now. There is no need to equate metaphysics to something which sounds so much like spiritualism and fantasy. When I use the word metaphysics I mean the study of the nature of reality as a subject of philosophy in which careful logic informed by science can still play a role. Even though we may not be able to construct testable hypotheses we can still stick close to the evidence (although not all of it may live up the a scientific standard of objectivity). Furthermore I do think there is a purely scientific approach to understanding life which is entirely quantifiable based on the mathematical models found in chaotic dynamics. I think that this can provide us with a mathematical measure of life to compare the life of a human to that of a bacterium and even to that of the earth (although I suspect this measure will show that the planet earth is less alive than a bacterium).

I think of the cosmos as quasi-organic and reject the Newtonian mechanistic model. A dynamic quasi-organic model seems to me to be more consistent with a dynamic, creative God, whose characteristics are part of all he creates.

Read Erich Jantsch's book. This will give a much clearer scientific foundation for these ideas. I do think life extends far beyond what is traditionaly considered life but that it is a particular quantifiable process that can be found in many different mediums (and especially in communities of living organisms like ecosystems). I believe that you are essentially correct about the cosmos for I think its defining nature is the capacity for life, and I think that, is the very reason for its existence - the reason God created it -- as the womb of life.

And now back to what I think you are missing that I hinted at before. You accept the value of science in uncovering the truth and for this reason you oppose the YEC, but what I don't think you realize is that because of the nature of living things, God could not create them any other way. Why? Why was a ten-twenty billion year old universe needed? Why are we made of atoms and elementary particles? What have these particles to do with what we are? The answer lies in the fact that what God was seeking to acheive in the creation of life is something quite non-trivial.

Life is not something which can be designed. Its very nature requires God to create it in an interactive process where God participates in the life of living things as a cultivator and teacher in same way that He participates in the life of a Christian. What you are missing is the role of living things in their own creation. Otherwise there is no reason not to believe that God created living things by snapping His fingers. And this is the hidden reason for my stubborn emphasis on variation (creativity) as the driving force of evolution. Living things have the drive but not the know how or the long term vision which God what supplies via "natural selection."

I take the point on organic technology, but I can't see referring to some cells as being weaker than others. They are all mutually interdependent.

But this is how this "second stage" of evolution begins.

Do you remember the movie "Never cry wolf" (I assume you have seen it and you certainly should if you haven't). A biologist goes into the wilderness of Alaska to study the wolves to investigate claims that the wolves are responsible for the dying herds of an Alaskan herbivore which the natives depended on for hunting. His conclusion was instead that it was the hunting down of the wolf, which by removing the influence of natural selection on these herds, was causing the herds to sicken and die.

When individuals start forming communities they support each other and as a result the influence of natural selection on the individual begins to weaken. Genetic weakness and handicaps begin to proliferate. This begins a kind of co-evolutionary process which can be called communal evolution. The removal of the original pressure of natural section toward capabilities of individual survival allows a great increase in variation of the individual members of the community. This allows them to take on specialized roles in the community which in turn makes the development of communal technology possible. Finally this communal technology or "organic technology" as you call it begins to compensate for for the "handicaps" and genetic weakness of the individual members of the community to further increase variation of individual members of the community which can contribute productively to the community in increasingly specialized roles.

Have your read Dawkins? Especially Climbing Mount Improbable. What you are saying reminds me of his concept of exploring design space.

Until recently I had only read "The Selfish Gene" which I despised. Then a person I respect in another forum reccommended "Ancestors Tale" and I admired its speculative ambition. I shall have to take a look at "Climbing Mount Improbable" now.

I'll keep these recommendations in mind. I am definitely interested in learning more about Chaotic Dynamics. Former physicist turned theologian, John Polkinghorne, considers Chaos theory theologically significant. Are you familiar with his writing?

I had not read anything of his before, but it is clear that we have a lot in common and with the similarity of our approach it is only natural that we share the same opinion on many things. I notice for example that he shares much of my opinion of Whitehead. Anyway that will take some time to read and I am almost finished this response so I will read the rest of it afterwards.

By the way I reccommend James Gleich's book "Chaos" as a starter on that topic. Then read Erich Jantsch's book afterward. Ilya Prigogine is only significant in his proof that you can determine non-linear systems from their initial conditions only if you have those initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision, which means that quantum phenomena are significant in non-linear systems despite being macroscopic.

Oh, a philosophical soulmate! I think the impact of Platonism on early Christian theology was most detrimental. Like you, I much prefer the nominalist approach of Aristotle, with the modifications you suggest.

I should modify my judgement of Plato to say there is much which has merit with similar modifications. For example, I do accept Plato's idea of the "imortality of the Soul". Another idea of Aristotle which inspired me are his four causes, not because I accept them but because they inpired a new idea of a non-traditional type of causality which I have been proposing in order to unravel the paradoxes of free will. I have discussed this in threads "Christian Philosophy & Ethics -> What is Spirit?" and "Unorthodox Theology->Just how unorthodox is Open Theism" (page 2).

Of course, if one must attach labels, my true philosophical orientation is existentialist (Christian version a la Kierkegaard and Karl Barth, not Sartre or Heidegger.)
Same here. We are soul-mates!

We have more in common than you think. Existentialism is my first philosophical orientation (although I would have named Kieerkegard and Albert Camus). Albert Camus may surprise you, but I got more from him than he probably intended. His criticism of Christianity only led me to dig deeper for its truth rather doubting its validity. But perhaps it was the use of stories to convey philosophical ideas by Camus in "The Stranger", Kafka in "Metamorphosis", and Sartre in "The Wall" which made Existentialism so fasinating to me. After all it was probably "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "Out of the Silent Planet" by C. S. Lewis that had more to do with my eventally becoming a Christian than anything else. I dared to write a term paper for a university "Existentialism" class, arguing that (despite being in the fantasy genre) the "Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" by Stephen Donaldson was primo existentialist literature (I got a B+ on it in spite of my cheek).

It was in seminary that I was inspired by Aristotle, the Pragmatism of Charles Sanders Pierce, but criticized Plato, Whitehead and Thomas Kuhn in my masters thesis, "The metaphysical implications of contemporary physics". It was also in seminary that I started coming around to seeing Paul as central to understanding the Bible so that I could eventually join the ranks of traditional Christianity (19 years after asking Jesus into my life).

 

[gluadys]

Whew! I think I just spent practically the whole day on this.

I know the feeling. So I am keeping this response short. I think it obvious now we are actually thinking on much the same lines, but articulating it differently.

Eureka! This is why you keep arguing that natural selection is the driving force of evolution! In your mind you are equating natural selection with the hand of God.

Not really.

I believe that you are essentially correct about the cosmos for I think its defining nature is the capacity for life, and I think that, is the very reason for its existence - the reason God created it -- as the womb of life.

Agreed. One of the books I found helpful in this regard is Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin.

but what I don't think you realize is that because of the nature of living things, God could not create them any other way. Why? Why was a ten-twenty billion year old universe needed? Why are we made of atoms and elementary particles? What have these particles to do with what we are? The answer lies in the fact that what God was seeking to acheive in the creation of life is something quite non-trivial.

Life is not something which can be designed. Its very nature requires God to create it in an interactive process where God participates in the life of living things as a cultivator and teacher in same way that He participates in the life of a Christian. What you are missing is the role of living things in their own creation. Otherwise there is no reason not to believe that God created living things by snapping His fingers. And this is the hidden reason for my stubborn emphasis on variation (creativity) as the driving force of evolution. Living things have the drive but not the know how or the long term vision which God what supplies via "natural selection."

On the contrary. I am not missing this. You are echoing my very thoughts. Especially the bolded phrases.

Do you remember the movie "Never cry wolf" (I assume you have seen it and you certainly should if you haven't).

I haven't seen the movie, but if it's based on the Farley Mowat book, I've read the book.



When individuals start forming communities they support each other and as a result the influence of natural selection on the individual begins to weaken. Genetic weakness and handicaps begin to proliferate. This begins a kind of co-evolutionary process which can be called communal evolution. The removal of the original pressure of natural section toward capabilities of individual survival allows a great increase in variation of the individual members of the community. This allows them to take on specialized roles in the community which in turn makes the development of communal technology possible. Finally this communal technology or "organic technology" as you call it begins to compensate for for the "handicaps" and genetic weakness of the individual members of the community to further increase variation of individual members of the community which can contribute productively to the community in increasingly specialized roles.


Until recently I had only read "The Selfish Gene" which I despised. Then a person I respect in another forum reccommended "Ancestors Tale" and I admired its speculative ambition. I shall have to take a look at "Climbing Mount Improbable" now.

I had not read anything of his before, but it is clear that we have a lot in common and with the similarity of our approach it is only natural that we share the same opinion on many things. I notice for example that he shares much of my opinion of Whitehead. Anyway that will take some time to read and I am almost finished this response so I will read the rest of it afterwards.

By the way I reccommend James Gleich's book "Chaos" as a starter on that topic. Then read Erich Jantsch's book afterward. Ilya Prigogine is only significant in his proof that you can determine non-linear systems from their initial conditions only if you have those initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision, which means that quantum phenomena are significant in non-linear systems despite being macroscopic.

We have more in common than you think. Existentialism is my first philosophical orientation (although I would have named Kieerkegard and Albert Camus). Albert Camus may surprise you, but I got more from him than he probably intended.

Neat. I am not surprised by Camus. The only reason I did not name him was that he was not Christian. I have certainly read the non-Christian existentialists, and Camus is by far my favorite.

 

[Lilandra]

Beloved let us love one another. For he that loves not, does not know God because God is love.

As the YEC who actually said that I challenge any TE interested in stepping up. Define God!

 

[Ave Maria]

I am a Theistic Evolutionist and I believe in all of those things!

 

[Buho]

Relspace: "Chronological Snobbery", check Surprised by Joy.

Relspace: "We are created by God, who is the creator of everything else." Don't forget: God is also the maker of the earth, original plants, original animals, and Adam and Eve. I've noticed TEs are less enthusiastic about agreeing to this one, God as Maker.

Relspace: "...as would be understood by the people to whom it was first written 4 millenia ago." And to us amidst our scientific knowledge.

Relspace: "Science is neutral as long as we keep the rhetoric of creationists and atheists out of it." Well, again, kinda. Evidence is neutral. From what I've seen in crevo, science is not neutral. Science incorporates bias, which is difficult/impossible to remove from the scientist. One example is the vehemenence mainstream scientists have against any scientist who presents evidence that challenges the paradigm of universal common descent. That's not science. Science is supposed to be neutral. Consequentially, I've noticed a slightly higher calibur of professionality and thoroughness amongst creation scientists when reading their papers.

Relspace: "Buho: "This is that postmodern effect you are talking about." That is ridiculous." Whoops! I retract that response. Sorry. I don't know where my head was, there.

Relspace: "Sorry no. I prefer the neutral science without the added rhetoric." Unfortunately, I've been completely unable to find a balanced treatment of crevo. Everybody seems to have taken sides. The best stuff I've seen is creation scientist work published in historically evolution-friendly, creation-antagonistic journals like Nature. The trouble is: evidence needs to be interpreted, and the interpretation needs to be run through a framework (long-ages or young earth). This is actually not so different from observational science where things can be tested and repeated (see followers of Einstein's relativity vs. followers of quantum theory), but just that the crevo origins thing is so much more extreme.

Relspace: "I think they are both wrong for the same reason: a deplorable misunderstanding about what living things really are. But you wouldn't be interested in that, because there is nothing about it in that little "history" of yours." Do tell. Is this that metaphysical stuff you mentioned? The Bible answers this question pretty well in Genesis 1-2. Remove Genesis 1-2, replace it with secular evolution, and humans are no different than animals, and animals are simply organized inorganic molecules. That's what atheists would have you believe. (Huh, I just realized "organized" has "organ" in it, from "organic." Neat! "Organized inorganic" molecules is an oxymoron! )

+ + + + +

Shern: "The fact is that in uncorking the bottle by using the idea of phenomenology, you have really let the genie of prescientific cosmogony out of the bottle." Phenomenological does not equal prescientific. We use phenomenological words today in our scientific culture. There are two ways of describing something. Both are valid. Both are true. Kind of like taking a meter board and saying "this board is 100 centimeters" and someone else saying "this board is 1000 millimeters." Two different descriptions, both are correct. The Bible just uses one type of description.

Your parallels with heliocentricism and evolution are good. But you're not quite right with the evolution one. Let me adjust it:

Genetic variation, natural selection, and speciation is an observed fact. Universal common descent is not observed.
But the Bible says that animals reproduce according to their kind.
Therefore the expression "according to their kind" is a phenomenological expression.
We should not infer from this any notion of universal common descent, that kinds of animals can trancend to new kinds. A reptile will always be a reptile, despite what complicated sub-cellular mechanisms are taking place.

You changed "kind" to "species" which I objected to. Also, evolution is ambiguous, so I separated the observed kind with the unobserved kind.

And yes, I agree with the observed part of the first line in your block.
Yes, I agree with the second line. (Good you included the 1st block to establish how we know what phenomenological is.)
Yes, I agree with the third line, minus the switch from kind to species.

Actually, another problem with the second block I just noticed is the non-parallel dichotomy. The first block has conflicting statements but the second one does not. Because of this, the last line is a little confusing and hard to compare. Whoops, I may have edited your block wrong. Let me try again:

Animals producing new phyla is an observed fact.
But the Bible says that animals reproduce according to their kind.
Therefore the expression "according to their kind" is a phenomenological expression.
We should not infer from this any notion of genetic fixity of kinds.

Again I replaced "species" with kinds. I also changed evolution. Now here we have a similar block to the first one. I agree to line 2, 3, and 4. However, line 1 is incorrect. Animals producing new phyla is not observed, but a human interpretation of evidence.

Your next two blocks on slavery opens a whole new can of worms I'd rather skip. It's a bad example because of the inherent complexity and social, debatable undertones that go with it. I'm glad I'm using a fake name here, because I'm going to say that Biblical slavery is, well, biblical, and not inherently wrong. There are actually two kinds of slavery: the kind you see in the Bible (and the majority of history) and the brutal, dehumanizing, race-driven kind America is familiar with. Do not associate the two. Biblical slavery takes into account God's two greatest commandments. American slavery does not.

Shern: "Phenomenological explanations are a tacit agreement that God saw fit to use the current paradigms of the day to express His truth..." Again, no. Phenomenological does not equal prescientific. Phenomenological descriptions are simply another equally true and valid way to describe something.

Shern: "...even though those paradigms were utterly flawed as scientific explanations." You have not established this, and what you say here contradicts what I just said. Possibly this is my fault for not tracking with slavery. If so, I appologize.

Shern: "Thus when the Psalmist says that the movement of the sun across the sky glorifies God, and we know in modern terms that the sun does not move and the earth does, that does not in any way diminish the truth carried by the flawed science: that God is glorified in nature." There's another truth here: the orbital mechanics in the Psalmist's day are similar to ours. Had the Psalmist said "the sun stopped in the sky" we could "convert" this to a scientific language and say "the earth stopped rotating for a time" or "the sun for a time orbited the earth at the same rate the earth spins." See how it works? It's pretty neat, I think. You can convert back and forth just like you can convert between millimeters and centimeters. (Oh yeah, the conversion can take place only if we are fairly sure that the Psalmist isn't using a figure of speach. This is tricky in Psalms, easier Chronicles and the Gospels.)

The rest of your response doesn't follow until you can establish the connection with the evolution block. Again, this might just be me.

Shern: "Pop quiz: tell me what the heavens are in Genesis 1:1, without using science." (1) There are three kinds of "heavens:" the atmosphere, space, and heaven. "Heaven" in this case is shamayim which can mean all three. (2) There is a right answer. (3) Finite humans may not be able to determine the right answer. (4) My answer: This is the spiritual heaven in which angels reside because it is placed in contrast with the physical earth we are familiar with. Why do you quiz? A better pop quiz would be to ask what the three components are in Genesis 1:7 using nothing but scripture. In that case, I would be forced to admit a reliance upon simple observation that water is at the bottom, sky is above that, space is above sky, and Heaven is... above that. From this observation I can deduce what components God is talking about in Gen 1:7. Again, though, this is a phenomenological observation: to us, the China Sea is above the sky and to an astronaut, earth is above space!

Shern: "Define a function with which one can measure information content in a genome or a protein. Otherwise you cannot claim to know that all mutations decrease information, if you can't even define what information is." I appologize: I did not mean to patronize. You're trying to pin me on quantifying "information" which you already know has not been done. Nevertheless, the concept of "information" and quantity is not alien to us. We generally accept that a single-celled organism has "less information" than a human. Thus, there is a quantity relationship. But what is the quanta?

Geneticists have done extensive comparisons between organisms. They can tell you exactly what needs to change in one organism for it to evolve into another organism. Can they tell you how it can happen (or did happen)? Sometimes. Can they show you? No. This leaves their stories as just that: stories. This part isn't science and isn't observed. (Not to minimize the tremendous work that goes into comparing genes.) Have geneticists observed changes in the genome? Yes. Are they toward a more complex structure? No. (There is one case, the nylon bug, but the far majority has shown case after case of features losing complexity, features turning off or being hampered. This is mutations in action. Natural selection then chooses from these limited forms in specific cases, but, introduced to the prior form in its natural environment, are out-competed. This shows mutations work to destroy, and natural selection maintains status quo.)

Relspace: Post #65. The trouble is, none of us are that great of scientists, and there is, to my knowledge, a scientific procedure that involves weighing the evidence: mass all the evidence for one theory, weigh it with another. Which theory fits the evidence better? That's what I think I attempt to do. By the way, I do look at as many facts as I can. (I am currently researching biomechanisms of photosynthesis and next up after that is the evolution of the nylon bug.) Possibly I am being accused of not doing so when I present Creationist-friendly evidence to balance the evolutionist-friendly evidence that is offered on this board by evolutionists?

The "randomness" of mutations are when external factors change the genome, such as cosmic rays or mutagens. Genetic variation from fertilization, to my knowledge, has shown little help in increasing complexity, a direction Darwinists need to evidence to support the theory of universal common ancestry.

Relspace, the word "evolution" you use in your last paragraph in #65 is the kind of evolution that YECs agree is observational science.

 

[Buho]

A fundamentalist should rely on scripture alone without adding science to it to reinterpret scripture. A fundamental reading of Genesis 1 is historical narrative.

Yet a fundamentalist has no scriptural reason to read Genesis 1 as historical narrative. That assumption comes from outside of scripture.

I'd link you to 10 articles on the hermeneutics and exegesis of Genesis 1 by top Hebrew scholars but I doubt it would do any good.

Gluadys: "Sorry. but evidence is not neutral." Yes, evidence is neutral. Some stars are more red than others. That's evidence. It cannot speak. It cannot contradict itself. To say that the redder stars are moving away from us is an interpretation which is fallible. (I'm not saying this example interpretation is wrong.)

Gluadys: "Your list of "dirty little secrets" are commonly referred to as PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times)." Can you link me to the PRATT entry for each of them? As far as I know, none of them are PRATTs. Also, PRATT begs the question: "refuted correctly (shown to be wrong) or just rebutted and dismissed?

Gluadys: "If you understood evolution, you would not expect that result." Your thoughts on evolution are the most confusing of all, Gluadys. Is it just me, everybody, or do you agree with her? I, as often as I can, attempt to not use the word "evolution" because it's so vague a term. I agree to genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, and disagree to universal common ancestry.

Yes, we are prone to misinterpretation of God's truths. How can we be sure that we are interpreting God's word correctly? By using more scripture, starting with easily-understood fundamentals and building from there.

And where do these "easily-understood" fundamentals come from if not from fallible human teachers? They are not, to my knowledge, listed in scripture itself.

They are in scripture.

Show me.

This is roughshod...
Start with God's attributes: God is Truth, God is perfect, God cannot do wrong, God is faithful (Deut 32:4, Isaiah 65:16, Psalm 146:6, John 1:14).
Move on to God's Word: God's word is trustworthy (Psalm 111:7, Psalm 119:138)
See where I'm going with this? Basic fundamentals that don't require much hermeneutics. From here you can build doctrines that are solidly grounded by manifold simple verses of scripture. These are the footers or pylons built upon the foundation (Jesus, the Word) from which more elaborate and tenuous interpretations can be built. But if they're tied solidly to doctrines which have previously been shown to be immovable, then you have a solid framework. YECs have, by far, a stronger framework than TEs. This is called exegesis, something I am learning to do better in my new walk with Christ (of 18 months). This is something the early Church prized. This is something taught very infrequently in today's Church.

Shern: "...within the few attempts I've seen, 2 was impossible - within their frameworks there were mutations which increased information." To that bit, it's good to compare the probability of information-additions and information-subtractions and whether a point information-addition can be conserved once made despite it not producing any increased fitness ("under the radar;" it takes many information-additions to complete a new feature).

Shern: "So I am skeptical when creationists play the information card, unless they really know their stuff." I hope you're around here in a few years so we can talk. I am planning on getting a Masters in Information Theory. Crevo aside, it's a fascinating topic!

Williams: "Biology doesn't make a philosophic claim that RM means human life is meaningless, scientists speaking as metaphysicans do." I'm not aware I've made such a claim or have relied upon it. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.) My primary objection is the deviation from scripture. On topic here, that means attempts to put universal common descent as God's creating mechanism into the Bible, but there are other topics (like Arminianism). Have I said too much? :O

Williams: "maybe God is not subject to QM uncertainties" I don't know about you, but my reading from the Bible suggests your maybe is a definate yes. QM is a creation of God just as is E=mc^2 and the gravitational constant. To think God is constrained by something he created is just humorous.

Shern: "It's really like the concept of the second law of thermodynamics." What are your thoughts on the Generalized 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the idea of increasing biological information? Just curious.

Williams: "Information theory, like any math, is inextricably bound to a conscious mind." Ignoring the math part... that's the sense I got reading your posts. I got to wondering, in, say, 500 years, will Information be a quantifiable unit? I'm thinking probably not. It is bound too closely to the human mind and not enough in the real world. Quite a paradox though, since we all inherently understand the difference between "a lot" of information and "a little!"

Relspace: "Religion sees in the most important matters where science is blind, but science and religion alone leave us with a rather disjointed reality, and it is the role of philosophy to seal the breach." Can you name a few places where science and religion leave gaps? From what I've found, there's no room for philosophy, just (Christian) theology and science. Hmm, granted, there are some areas not illuminated to us, such as God's eternality, or how God elects (Rom 9:19-20), but there is also no room for philosophy here. At least, no philosophy (speculation) that we can act upon. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Gluadys: "Most species have become extinct." That's conjecture based mostly on assumption. An evolutionist calculated, based on how much time elapsed (4000ma), and how many transitionals would be needed to account for each fossilized species, 99% of all species in all of history are now extinct. If you count up all the fossil species plus observed and recorded species, that percent is quite a bit lower. (I haven't seen the calculation.) I just wanted to call out the difference between evidence and speculation.

And yes, as Relspace said, your postmodern bit was very good. (That was your daughter, wasn't it? )

Gluadys: http://www.christianforums.com/t2977298-behe-and-fellow-faculty-members-on-id.html Thanks for bringing this back on topic. I'll read it in a bit.

+ + + + +

A friend of mine was looking suspiciously at his wife when she walked to get drinks from the bar with a mutual friend of ours, I kicked him in the shins (sort of gently) and gave him a questioning look.

He repeated some gossip a "friend" had passed on to him.
I said, "You are behaving like Othello and if you keep it up I'll rip you a new one!"

Would the above prove that I think Othello was a real person?
If I don't believe Othello was real, would the above make me a liar?

Now you got me interested in what the gossip was! LOL!

Your scenario is fine and dandy. But you omit the geneology record book in your basement that links your grandfather to Othello. Now I have strong reason to believe (1) your dad (or you) is a charlatan or (2) Othello really is a real person. See Luke 3. And Genesis 3-12. These "just so" explanations only work when examining part of the Bible. The Bible, taken as a whole, refuses to be altered.

As far as I can see, if Genesis 1-11 isn't historical narrative and Darwinian evolution (plus billions of years) is fact, there is no reason to be a Christian, none of us need saving, Jesus was a liar and a charletan, []Yes, I'm making big logical jumps, but that is the end conclusion from a logical outworking of the fuller theory of Darwinian evolution.

Why stop there? why not join Dad and declare that the Earth has never revolved?

You make light of my logical outworking, and make a poor connection: the revolution of the earth is an empirical fact. Billions of years is not, not is universal common ancestry.

There are reasons. The primary reason is: sola scriptura.

Do you know what that means?

Historically?

Do you know where Scripture came from, how the Canon was chosen?[/quote]
Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes. Very well, I might add, on each point. Those were some of the first things I learned once I got the Gospel of John under my belt as a very new Christian.

Why then do TEs excercise disbelief when it comes to Genesis 1-11? TEs already believe God can suspend natural laws. TEs also believe scripture is God-breathed. God is also incapable of lying! Why then the inconsistency of beliefs regarding Genesis?

What disbelief?
What inconsistancy?

Genesis 1-11 could have happened, it's in God's power. TEs reject Genesis 1-11 as history and stubbornly refuse to see how it contradicts (or makes more difficult) the rest of scripture, and infringes upon their own Gospel, undermining it.

Robert: "The utter lack of evidence for a global flood," I'd say the evidence is everywhere.
Robert: "the overwhelming evidence against one," Admittedly, there IS evidence against a global flood.
Robert: "the utter lack in the solar neighborhood of short lived radionuclides which don't have a continuous production source,
while they exist elsewhere in the galaxy..." News to me. I'll check them out in the future.
Robert: "varves," Emperical evidence has recorded up to five varves formed in a single year. Not saying what you say is debunked, but there's a possible alternative explanation. I don't know much about varves.
Robert: "tree rings," No tree has more than a few thousand rings, and it's been observed that some trees produce two rings in good years. This isn't a problem for YECs.
Robert: "the fact that our Chromosome 2 looks like chimps' 2 and 3 glued together..." Comparisons show a common design, not common ancestry.
Robert: "Dual jawbones in reptile mammal transition at the right place in the fossil record ..." Can't comment. Haven't studied.

Robert: "All these things, all this evidence, convinces me that Gen 1 is not meant to be read literally." Fair enough. Be prepared to maul holy scripture with your interpretations of the evidence.

+ + + + +

Relspace: "Whew! I think I just spent practically the whole day on this." I did spend the whole day on this thread, and one other in YEC/TE. About 15 hours non-stop. Birds are chirping out my window....

 

[Pats]

Can anyone tell me if Mark ever, during the course of this thread, bothered to give his own definition of God?

I have to tell you that even when I first came to this board and was quite culture shocked to learn how many Christians agree with the theory of evolution.... I certainly did not doubt their Christianity, particularly after reading just a sampling of what they had to say.

Furthermore, I see atheists down in the Crevo forum argueing this kind of thinking regarding TEs and holding more respect for their Christianity than I am seeing from some YECist.

This says to me that there are some YECs who are so narrow minded they are blatantly preudice.

And how anyone can view origins theology as central to the message of Christ and Salvation is really beyond me.

 

[relspace]

Relspace: "Religion sees in the most important matters where science is blind, but science and religion alone leave us with a rather disjointed reality, and it is the role of philosophy to seal the breach." Can you name a few places where science and religion leave gaps? From what I've found, there's no room for philosophy, just (Christian) theology and science. Hmm, granted, there are some areas not illuminated to us, such as God's eternality, or how God elects (Rom 9:19-20), but there is also no room for philosophy here.

Sure can.

Example 1: Religion says God created every living thing that moves. In science, the theory of evolution answers the question of what observable or measurable causes can explain the diversity of living creatures that exist upon the earth. This not only seems disjointed but incompatable. It is not really incompatable because God is nether observable nor measurable and most things have multiple causes. But at the very least we are left with a disjointed reality because if the theory of evolution is correct then where is the hand of God in the creation of every living thing? It is easy simply take either religion or science less seriously and the problem vanishes. But if you want to take both religion and science seriously then the question remains. And in answering this question, the methods philosophy (in addition to theology) rather than those of either religion or science can be of aid.

Example 2: Religion says we have a life giving spirit. Science describes human life in terms of atoms, molecules acting according to the mathematical laws of physics including an complex array of biochemical processes. Again we are left with a rather disjointed reality. If we have a spirit then where can it be found? Where do the activities of life, which seem to be caused by all these biochemical reactions, connect with this thing we are calling the spirit? The philosophical inquiries which are part of the subject matter of metaphysics can be of aid.

At least, no philosophy (speculation) that we can act upon.

It is not action which is at stake here. As far as action is concerned science and religion suffice. It is only understanding which we lack. But this kind of understanding can help to reaffirm the value of both science and religion in our society.

 

[Redneck Crow]

I am a TE, and I believe in all of these with the qualification that I believe that the Great Commission was a commandment to Israel, not to the Body of Christ.

(I'm also an Acts 9 dispy!)

 

[relspace]

I believe that the Great Commission was a commandment to Israel, not to the Body of Christ.

That is certainly something I have never heard of before. I cannot even make sense of it. How is that even possible? Where can I get more of an explanation for what you are talking about.

 

[Dispy]

I believe that the Great Commission was a commandment to Israel, not to the Body of Christ.

That is certainly something I have never heard of before. I cannot even make sense of it. How is that even possible? Where can I get more of an explanation for what you are talking about.

From the book Common Questions About the Grace Message by Joel Finck.

13) Aren’t we supposed to be carrying outthe Great Commission?

To answer the question, let’s take a mental stroll through the Bible. From the fall of Adam and Eve until this present day, God has always sought the salvation of mankind. He has always provided some way for man to approach Him on His terms. Throughout the ages, God has even gone the extra step of commissioning certain individuals or groups to carry His message to the people of the earth so that they clearly understand just what God expects of them. Before the flood, Noah was commissioned as a preacher of righteousness. For 120 years, as he was building that ark, he proclaimed God’s righteousness to an increasingly sinful and wicked world.

After the flood, the world soon turned away from God once again. Mankind showed its rebellion against God by building a tower and a city to make a name for themselves. To this day we know the name of that tower - the Tower of Babel, the city of Babylon. At this point, God commissioned someone else to become a separate nation through whom He could reach these unbelieving Gentile nations. That person was Abram, soon to become Abraham. This nation, which eventually was known as the nation of Israel, inherited the commission to be a light to the other nations, to lead them to the true and living God. Here is how it was supposed to work: God promised the people of Israel that if they would obey His covenant, then He would be their God and they would be His people. As the nations round about Israel looked at the blessing of God falling upon this one nation, they would ask why they were so blessed? Then they would come and inquire, and Israel would point them to their God and say, “We’re blessed because we serve the living and true God.”

Let us give an Old Testament passage to illustrate how this was supposed to operate. This was God’s order for bringing the nations of the earth to Himself through Israel. We sometimes call this the Kingdom program or the prophetic program. We call it the prophetic program because it was revealed in the prophets. It was spoken of by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:21). Isaiah 60:1-3, “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” Who is He talking about? In this context, He is referring to Zion. Zion is another name for Jerusalem, the capital city of the nation of Israel, in biblical times. In verse 3 we read, “And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.” God’s intention and plan was to bring Israel as a light to the nations and to lift her up on high so that the nations would see that light and so that kings would seek out the glory of God through Israel. This was how it was supposed to work. But unfortunately, many times, it did not work that way. Israel, as the centuries rolled on, failed to be the light that God wanted her to be. Israel, herself, slipped into apostasy. She slipped away from the truth of God’s word and God’s revelation to her. This was the condition that Christ found her in when He came to the earth as a babe in the manger. As our Lord ministered on the earth, His first commission to His apostles was not for them to go out unto all the world. In order for the world to be saved according to that kingdom or prophetic program through the nation of Israel, first Israel had to rise up as a great light. Israel herself was in great darkness when Christ came.

Notice how He first commissioned His apostles. Matthew 10:1-4: “And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbeaus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

Verse 5, “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, ‘Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.’” We should ask the question, why not? Did not God love the Gentile nations at this time? Did not Christ desire to see them saved? Of course He did. But He was operating according to knowledge and understanding that God would bring His light to the nations through Israel. If Israel herself was lost, she first needed to come to the Lord, then Israel could be a light to the nations. This is why He says in verse 6, “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In Matthew 15 we see that this commission applied even to our Lord. Matthew 15:21 says, “Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts.” Notice that the Holy Spirit inspires the writer to show us this is a Gentile woman; a woman of Canaan. Why is that so important? Because of what the Lord is about to say. She comes with a request in verse 22: “She cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Does that sound like our loving, caring Lord? He does not even talk to her. Why does He do this?

Verse 25, ”Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” This is going from bad to worse it seems. The Lord knew His commission, didn’t He? He knew he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He knew that the nations could not be blessed until the children were filled. What children? The children of Israel. Let the children first be filled. But notice her faith in verse 27, “And she said, Truth, Lord.” Her answer shows that she understood the program under which she lived. She understood she did not have a claim on God’s blessings directly. She understood she did not have access to the glorious blessings that God promised to Israel. But then notice her statement of faith, “Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” She is saying in effect, Lord I don’t expect the direct blessing that you have promised to your children of Israel. I do not expect that. I just want a few leftovers. I just want a few crumbs. The Lord at that point saw her great faith and so He blessed her. Verse 28, “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

You see that principle being well established that the nations are not to be blessed under this kingdom and prophetic program until Israel is first blessed. Once Israel was straightened out, then and only then, was the message to go out to the nations. Christ made this perfectly clear when He commissioned the twelve apostles. Luke 24:46, “And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Here is that same principle. Let the children first be filled. Acts 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnessesm unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” When Israel was filled, then the message could go on to the nations. The only problem was that Israel rejected the kingdom offer. This was a problem from our point of view. But was it a problem for God? Of course not. God had in His mind a plan by which He could reach the nations in spite of the stubbornness of Israel. He had a plan whereby the nations could hear His word and they would not have to come through Israel’s rising. Remember Isaiah 60:3 where God says the nations would come to the light of Israel’s rising. Now consider a contrast to that in Romans 11:11. Here the Apostle Paul draws a contrast between how God reaches the nations today as opposed to how the prophets spoke of Israel’s rising. Under the prophetic program, the kingdom program, the nations were to be reached through Israel’s rising. But in Romans 11:11 we read, “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? [Referring to Israel] God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” Do you see the difference? In Isaiah, the nations are to come through Israel’s rising. In Romans, the nations are blessed through Israel’s fall. How can that be? And how does that tie into the Great Commission?

God revealed his plan to reach the nations in spite of Israel through the Apostle Paul. God determined that if Israel would not go to the nations, He would temporarily by-pass that nation and go directly to the Gentiles. He chose a messenger by the name of Saul of Tarsus to become the great apostle of the Gentiles. When He did so, He temporarily suspended the Great Commission which was given to the Twelve. This leads to the next questions:

14) Where in Scripture do we ever find the Great Commission that was given to the Twelve being suspended?

(SNIP)

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Assyrian]

Where?