Need help from Theistic Evolutionists

[addo]

Recently speaking with an atheist, he appealed to evolution as an argument for atheism. When I asked him what does he think of theistic evolution (I'm not an evolutionist), he said:

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. Let's say you look at evolution, and assumes there's a god behind it. If you take god out of the equation the same will still happen, and therefore there's nothing divine about evolution. Evolution is a random self sustaining process that works without divine intervention.
Ofcourse you could say, everytime a mutation occurs, god stops that, and instead select another mutation, and do it in such a way that it appears to be random (including most mutations are bad). Where's the logic behind that?
​

There's another relatively recent article on creation.com that says basically the same thing but in other words (click here).

The basic claim is that God is not needed in evolution and that it can run on itself (why make a horse run the tractor while the tractor can run on its own?).

I'm interested on what do you think of this argument?

Blessings,

Emanuel

 

[philadiddle]

Why do people expect an all powerful God to create things that need His constant tinkering? Do we think that God is behind gravity? Yes. Do we think that He needs to constantly intervene? No. Gravity works just fine on its own because God made it to work that way.

To think that God is behind evolution gets us into philosophy, the science of evolution remains the same. Have a look at Aristotle's four main causes. In particular, the final cause is the teleology, or the reason, that something happens. For example ""if one defines the operation of sawing as being a certain kind of dividing, then this cannot come about unless the saw has teeth of a certain kind; and these cannot be unless it is of iron." According to Aristotle, once a final cause is in place, the material, efficient and formal causes follow by necessity." God wanting us to exist is the reason that evolution happened because it is how He chose to do it. So theistic evolution is a philosophical position that appeals to the final cause of the four main causes.

Also of interest to you might be Plantinga's "Evolutionary argument against naturalism." Like all philosophical arguments it's not bullet proof but it is compelling.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

... If you take god out of the equation the same will still happen, and therefore there's nothing divine about evolution ...

This is his own personal opinion, not fact. He assumes that the world would be the exactly the way it is now if God did not exist. He has no objective, observable evidence that this is the case.

Admittedly if you're creationist it will be much more difficult to argue against him, as evolutionists have the evidence on their side. However what no evolutionist has (whether they are theistic or atheistic) is proof that God does/n't exist.

 

[Mallon]

Tell the guy to take a philosophy of science course. Whether God exists isn't a question that science can answer because it's a question that science wasn't designed to answer.

Tell him you believe that if God didn't exist, then nothing would exist because nothing exists apart from Him (Heb 1:3). That's no weaker an argument than the one he's put forward. And if he still thinks science can address such a question, tell him to design an experiment where God is present and an experiment where God isn't present and to compare the results.

 

[mark kennedy]

Recently speaking with an atheist, he appealed to evolution as an argument for atheism. When I asked him what does he think of theistic evolution (I'm not an evolutionist), he said:

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. Let's say you look at evolution, and assumes there's a god behind it. If you take god out of the equation the same will still happen, and therefore there's nothing divine about evolution. Evolution is a random self sustaining process that works without divine intervention.
Ofcourse you could say, everytime a mutation occurs, god stops that, and instead select another mutation, and do it in such a way that it appears to be random (including most mutations are bad). Where's the logic behind that?
​

There's another relatively recent article on creation.com that says basically the same thing but in other words (click here).

The basic claim is that God is not needed in evolution and that it can run on itself (why make a horse run the tractor while the tractor can run on its own?).

I'm interested on what do you think of this argument?

Blessings,

Emanuel

I actually agree with his argument but what do I know, I'm a young earth creationist. I have known for years that the a priori assumption of universal common descent dismissed God as a cause of any kind. That is unless you reduce God to an abstraction the way Paul Tillich and other Liberal theologians have.

 

[Leetposter]

Science teaches that you can't get something from nothing :\

 

[Mallon]

I actually agree with his argument but what do I know, I'm a young earth creationist.

That's because atheists and YECs both subscribe to scientific concordism.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's because atheists and YECs both subscribe to scientific concordism.

What a cool word, if it's the opposite of this blatantly false statement I will be proud to share that distinction with my atheistic contemporaries.

Most theologians acknowledge that the primary message of the Bible concerns the relationship between God and his creation, not an account of the creation. Hope for Pandora

The book of Genesis falls into 10 sections, each described as 'accounts' (creation, man, Noah...). It is amazing how audacious TEs can be in their denial of the clear testimony of Scripture. The Scriptures call the 'account of creation' the 'account of creation' but it's not an account of creation.

Phew! It's been a while since I did this. I forgot how much fun it was to poke holes in these Darwinian rationalizations.

Catch you on the rebound.
Mark

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Recently speaking with an atheist, he appealed to evolution as an argument for atheism. When I asked him what does he think of theistic evolution (I'm not an evolutionist), he said:

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. Let's say you look at evolution, and assumes there's a god behind it. If you take god out of the equation the same will still happen, and therefore there's nothing divine about evolution. Evolution is a random self sustaining process that works without divine intervention.
Ofcourse you could say, everytime a mutation occurs, god stops that, and instead select another mutation, and do it in such a way that it appears to be random (including most mutations are bad). Where's the logic behind that?
​

There's another relatively recent article on creation.com that says basically the same thing but in other words (click here).

The basic claim is that God is not needed in evolution and that it can run on itself (why make a horse run the tractor while the tractor can run on its own?).

I'm interested on what do you think of this argument?

Blessings,

Emanuel

Well, if you believe in the existence of a soul, then evolution cannot explain that. Theistic evolutionist Christians maintain that God made man in his image, and provided him with a soul that separates us from other creatures. When and how this was done is not really important.

 

[Dr. Dog]

What a cool word, if it's the opposite of this blatantly false statement I will be proud to share that distinction with my atheistic contemporaries.



The book of Genesis falls into 10 sections, each described as 'accounts' (creation, man, Noah...). It is amazing how audacious TEs can be in their denial of the clear testimony of Scripture. The Scriptures call the 'account of creation' the 'account of creation' but it's not an account of creation.

Phew! It's been a while since I did this. I forgot how much fun it was to poke holes in these Darwinian rationalizations.

Catch you on the rebound.
Mark

Mark, you're "Spot" on! I agree. However fun it may be, the best is to be helpful in their education flaws. History, and yes even the Bible, reveals Darwin's theories in error. Darwin himself, on his death bed, even exclaimed that he didn't intend to write so atheistically. I belive that. He had to know his theories were not true science, which is the display of empirical data.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, you're "Spot" on! I agree. However fun it may be, the best is to be helpful in their education flaws. History, and yes even the Bible, reveals Darwin's theories in error. Darwin himself, on his death bed, even exclaimed that he didn't intend to write so atheistically. I belive that. He had to know his theories were not true science, which is the display of empirical data.

Well his theories were scientific but didn't go beyond the level of genus (one step above species). He was not really an atheist but natural selection is a poor substitute for a mechanism capable of adaptive evolution.

I think I would have liked Darwin, it's Darwinism and it's naturalistic assumptions that I don't like. Why isn't God as creator a possibility for science? According to Newton the 1st philosophy of science was cause and effect relationships for phenomenon. If God does act in time and space then God is by definition a cause.

I don't know about his death bed but he did express some regrets. I don't think he had some bone to pick with religion he just didn't believe in it.

His work has one very important contribution, he made science conversational. He was a great writer it's just a shame he was never able to read Mendel. Now there was a real scientist.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

I would like to ask you a question, Mark.

You posted these rules of science from Newton in one of the other threads.

• Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
• Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
• Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
• Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

So, I shall answer your question with a question.

Take a look at rule #3.

Take a look at this part, emphasis in bold added by me:

The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments

So it seems that if God is a cause, then all bodies would have the quality of being created by God. So what experiment shows that quality? Made out of atoms, sure. We can show that by experiments. Subject to gravity? Sure. But created by God?

Also, where does the line stop?

We don't need time, mutations, natural selection, common descent to explain the diversity of life, God did it. God is a cause.

We don't need charged ions in the atmosphere, clouds, and electricity to explain lightning, God does it. God is a cause.

We don't need germ theory to explain disease. God does it. God is a cause.

We don't need atomic theory to explain chemical reactions. God did it. God is a cause.

So, why is the first valid but not the rest? Or are they ALL valid? If they're all valid, why be so picky about which one you choose to apply?

Metherion

 

[addo]

Very good answers. Thank you very much, and may God bless you.

Emanuel

 

[Mallon]

That's because atheists and YECs both subscribe to scientific concordism.

And a deistic understanding of God, on second reading.

 

[GitRDunn]

Recently speaking with an atheist, he appealed to evolution as an argument for atheism. When I asked him what does he think of theistic evolution (I'm not an evolutionist), he said:

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. Let's say you look at evolution, and assumes there's a god behind it. If you take god out of the equation the same will still happen, and therefore there's nothing divine about evolution. Evolution is a random self sustaining process that works without divine intervention.
Ofcourse you could say, everytime a mutation occurs, god stops that, and instead select another mutation, and do it in such a way that it appears to be random (including most mutations are bad). Where's the logic behind that?
​

There's another relatively recent article on creation.com that says basically the same thing but in other words.

The basic claim is that God is not needed in evolution and that it can run on itself (why make a horse run the tractor while the tractor can run on its own?).

I'm interested on what do you think of this argument?

Blessings,

Emanuel

I think he has jumped past the scientific and into the philosophical. My opinion, and what I would tell him, would be that yes, evolution is a process that works without constant divine intervention, but so do the chemical processes that allow us to live, gravity, time, etc. Just because God is not involved in every possible aspect of every imaginable thing every second of every day does not mean He is not involved. I am of the opinion that God created everything from nothing, and that at that initial moment of creation He set into motion all of the natural laws that we know so well. I would ask this atheist how he explains the origin of the universe without God? Sure, evolution is a process that can work on its own, but it could not work without the pre-existence of the atoms that make up everything, the forces that keep these atoms held together, and the energy that is all around us. Where did this stuff come from? That is the key question.

 

[gluadys]

Sure, evolution is a process that can work on its own, but it could not work without the pre-existence of the atoms that make up everything, the forces that keep these atoms held together, and the energy that is all around us. Where did this stuff come from? That is the key question.

Or we could ask, if God is constantly sustaining the existence of the universe and all its natural processes (as we believe), how do we know anything works "on its own"?

We only know it doesn't need minute-by-minute miraculous interventions to keep it going.

We don't know it works on its own at all because we have no experience of nature without God.

 

[Greg1234]

Recently speaking with an atheist, he appealed to evolution as an argument for atheism. When I asked him what does he think of theistic evolution (I'm not an evolutionist), he said:

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. Let's say you look at evolution, and assumes there's a god behind it. If you take god out of the equation the same will still happen, and therefore there's nothing divine about evolution. Evolution is a random self sustaining process that works without divine intervention.
Ofcourse you could say, everytime a mutation occurs, god stops that, and instead select another mutation, and do it in such a way that it appears to be random (including most mutations are bad). Where's the logic behind that?
​

There's another relatively recent article on creation.com that says basically the same thing but in other words (click here).

The basic claim is that God is not needed in evolution and that it can run on itself (why make a horse run the tractor while the tractor can run on its own?).

I'm interested on what do you think of this argument?

Blessings,

Emanuel

Creationists have been saying that for a long time now. And Darwinian evolution is to be accepted because it is purely naturalistic.

 

[Dr. Dog]

Or we could ask, if God is constantly sustaining the existence of the universe and all its natural processes (as we believe), how do we know anything works "on its own"?

Excellent thought! This is where I see TE's and/or evolutionists, stopping short of asking themselves this very question.

We only know it doesn't need minute-by-minute miraculous interventions to keep it going.

gluadys, read this again. To me, it seems contradictory to what you said above, because we don't know this at all. It's taken merely by assumption. Who knows that maybe it takes millisecond-by-millisecond miraculous intervention from God to keep it all going. Right? Of course. When does He ever stop watching over everything He's created? I would suggest, never.

We don't know it works on its own at all because we have no experience of nature without God.

Very true indeed! There is no way to prove scientifically that nature works apart from there being a creator who watches over His creation. Basically stated: God holds it all together for us. Why? Because he loves us enough to do so. And I don't think it took Him billions of years to make it all happen. He's way smarter than that. We have a big God. Amen!

 

[GitRDunn]

And I don't think it took Him billions of years to make it all happen. He's way smarter than that. We have a big God. Amen!

I don't mind saying that God could have created the Earth in any time frame He wished, despite the fact that I believe He actually did it in billions of our years. The problem I have with your statement is that you are limiting God's power. You are saying that He created the Earth in six days because He is smart/powerful enough that He didn't have to take billions of years to do it. The problem with this is that you are implying that He would have done it in the shortest time possible, which would imply He could not do it in less than the six days you believe He did it in. This is limiting His power. God could have created everything in any time frame He wished, and no matter what time frame He chose, it wouldn't have made a difference to Him because He exists outside of our time. With that said, it then doesn't matter what time frame He could have done it in, all that matters is what time frame He did do it in. I believe we can see the wonder of God revealed in His creation and thus I believe His creation should bear out the truth about when He created everything. Because of this I believe in an old Earth because that is what we see revealed in His creation.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would like to ask you a question, Mark.

Let me preface my response by saying I appreciate the civility and thoughtfulness of your questions. These are things that I think about a lot and it's refreshing to have the chance to organize the ideals I have in response to serious and critical questions. I have long considered creationism to be an experiment in evidential apologetics and I derive great personal benefit from these discussions for that reason.

You posted these rules of science from Newton in one of the other threads.

• Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
• Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
• Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
• Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. (Principia, Isaac Newton)​

So, I shall answer your question with a question.

Take a look at rule #3.

I'm not sure what question you mean but ok, lead on.

Take a look at this part, emphasis in bold added by me:

The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments​

So it seems that if God is a cause, then all bodies would have the quality of being created by God. So what experiment shows that quality? Made out of atoms, sure. We can show that by experiments. Subject to gravity? Sure. But created by God?

God is an inference predicated on the revelation of God in nature (sometimes refereed to as the lessor light of revelation). Bear in mind that we are talking about a primary 1st cause of creation and because of that it's transcendent. To paraphrase Aristotle its the substantive principle that transcends all reality, or in this case, the entire heavens and earth.

What I am describing to you is metaphysics. Newton, like many scientists, believed that while God as designer is warranted it had little, if any, bearing on natural phenomenon. God as the cause of creation is not the same thing as determining whether or not Ivory soap floats.

Also, where does the line stop?

That would depend on the phenomenon in question.

We don't need time, mutations, natural selection, common descent to explain the diversity of life, God did it. God is a cause.

Ok, you got a lot going on here, lets see if we can take this one at a time. You predicated the list with 'we don't need', without telling me what we do or do not need them for. Don't get me wrong, I know what you mean but it's important to focus on something in particular.

I'm really not trying to be asinine but let me answer your question to my question with a question.

What do we need these for?

• Mutations- Single-base substitutions, Insertions and Deletions, Duplications, Translocations
• Natural Selection- adaptation, speciation and mortality selection (aka survival)
• Common Descent- The common ancestor a population has in common.

In other words, what specific effect are we wanting to assign these causes to?

We don't need charged ions in the atmosphere, clouds, and electricity to explain lightning, God does it. God is a cause.

God can and does direct natural forces, determining whether or not God acted in time and space requires specific criteria. The New Testament has a long list of miracles evidenced by internal, external and bibliographical proofs. God confirms the Word that is going out by signs, miracles and mighty deeds. In order to determine whether God directed the lightning directly would require special revelation to that effect.

We don't need germ theory to explain disease. God does it. God is a cause.

We don't need atomic theory to explain chemical reactions. God did it. God is a cause.

Same issue with these two statements. While God is the transcendent 1st cause the warrant for determining that every disease and chemical reaction does not exist rationally.

Newton assigned specific causes to specific effects, you have to sort out what kind of a cause you are looking for. He had a specific cause and effect relationship when he performed this experiment for the Royal Society in London.

Now let me ask you, do the rules of Newton's experimental philosophy apply to a demonstration of his theory of light? Well, I don't think that anyone would try to argue to the contrary, of course it does. On the other hand he also included an intelligent design argument in revised editions of Principia, did he follow the same four rules in that argument? To be honest I don't think so nor do I think it was warranted to do so. The reason being that his 1st philosophy of science used an inductive approach to natural phenomena while an intelligent design argument is an inference based on a much broader general deduction.

Wrestling science from the clutches of Aristotelian philosophy was the key departure from medieval scholasticism during the Scientific Revolution. That does not mean that we have abandoned the wisdom of this great philosopher we are just using his mental tools in the proper context.

For example, if you substitute the word used here 'thing' with phenomenon, Aristotle distinguished different causes this way:

1. A thing's material cause is the material of which it consists. (For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.)
2. A thing's formal cause is its form, i.e. the arrangement of that matter.
3. A thing's efficient or moving cause[2] is "the primary source of the change or rest." An efficient cause of x can be present even if x is never actually produced and so should not be confused with a sufficient cause. (Aristotle argues that, for a table, this would be the art of table-making, which is the principle guiding its creation.)
4. A thing's final cause is its aim or purpose. That for which the sake of which a thing is what it is. (For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.)

Four causes

So, why is the first valid but not the rest? Or are they ALL valid? If they're all valid, why be so picky about which one you choose to apply?

Metherion

Because Metherion, we are talking about epistemology here as applied to rules of science. What you would have to do is to discern between the different causes for specific effects? Of course we need not invoke God as the cause of chemical reactions, lightning bolts and certainly not always blame God for a disease we might be diagnosed with. Naturalistic causes are:

1. True and sufficient to explain their appearances.
2. The same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
3. The qualities of bodies...(as qualified by the rest of rule 3) are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
4. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena

The ten plagues during the Exodus are not.

The creation of life in general and the creation of man in particular does not fall under induction from phenomena. The underlying question has to be what cause and effect relationship you are trying to determine and by what means.

Thanks, the subject material will make an interesting blog entry.

Grace and peace,
Mark