Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

DennisF · Dec 12, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
And I provided you with a direct link about how "contingent" is used in modern evolutionary biology. Other uses (if different, I don't really care what the are) are irrelevant.

Claims about "religious origins" are irrelevant to the usage of contingent in biology, and no one cares about the "Aristotelian Schoolmen" whatever they are.

Is the language of "modern evolutionary biology" independent of the language of science? Some of these words like contingency have an established meaning in the scientific tradition. Perhaps evolutionists want to create their own definitions.

People who want to understand science in any depth cannot avoid understanding its origins and history. That is left instead for the existential mentality of contemporary American cancel-culture. Don't be put off by the title of Klaaren's book; he provides a much deeper insight into the thinking in Boyle's time about necessity and contingency and why that issue back then has carried into the present.

Hans Blaster · Dec 12, 2024

DennisF said:
This says that evolutionary change occurs at varying rates. Yet Gould also recognized that random processes are not an explanation for how these changes occurred. That is the issue.

The issue you "raised" was "directed". Gould says nothing about things being "directed".

DennisF said:
There is nothing too interesting about this to anyone who is even passingly familiar (like me, not a Hebrew scholar) with the paleo-Hebrew language. Without contrivance, Hebrew scholars do not argue about whether nouns ending in -im are plural or not. It seems to me that some of the understanding of Genesis 1 is badly in need of a group rethink. Conrad Hyers wrote a book, the Meaning of Creation (John Knox Press, 1984) that helps to clear away confusion by those who attempt to read a modern scientific explanation into Genesis 1, but my simple observation beyond that is that the "us" - first-person plural pronoun - in verse 26 "Let us make adam [man] in our image ..." has as its antecedent, the only one possible, of the elohim (also plural) in verse 1. The translators take a called strike on this one, so it appears to me. Some theologians rationalize that "us" refers to the Trinity of Trinitarian doctrine which does not come into view at all in Genesis and is only barely hinted at in the entire Old Testament. To me, that's a contrived explanation for something that they have no explanation for.

None of this is relevant (or interesting) as you claimed "elohim" referred to "genetic engineers". SMH.

DennisF said:
No, that's not in the text but is me adding that if we were back there - "we" especially being engineers - would understand it perhaps that way. My implied point is that there was no abracadabra , no waving of a magic wand of God but in line with the character of YHWH as he is portrayed throughout the OT, is hesed; he acts perfectly consistently in his dealing s with Israel and also in how he upholds the physical world. Thus, we can expect that there is some physical explanation, if only we were advanced enough in our science, to explain what happened.

I would not use such demeaning terminology, but rather abrupt appearence of whole groups of species is exactly what the opening chapters of Genesis describes. No mention of method beyond "speaking". (And our science is plenty advanced enough to understand the origin of lifeforms.)

DennisF said:
Which book? Genesis?

Yes, obviously. My writing isn't that obtuse.

DennisF said:
Conrad Hyers, who is not ignorant of biology, addresses these concerns in that each of the days of creation picks off a major cluster of pagan gods of nature and de-deifies them. To try to read Genesis as some young-earth creationsts do, imposing modern science on Genesis 1, misses the whole point of the author, to debunk nature as created and not pagan gods as (the conclusion: Genesis 2:4) created stuff and not a genealogy of cognizant beings.

Whomever Hyers was he didn't edit Genesis, so he is not relevant.

DennisF said:
I agree, but as I understand the history of the attempts at explaining the origin of life, it has been a dismal history scientifically. Miller's experiments were a brilliant attempt but in retrospect rather amateurish by today's thinking. Since then some researchers have been fascinated by the properties of clay, but nothing (nothing alive, at least!) has emerged from it.

Miller? Oh, good grief, your references are way out of date.

Hans Blaster · Dec 12, 2024

DennisF said:
Is the language of "modern evolutionary biology" independent of the language of science? Some of these words like contingency have an established meaning in the scientific tradition. Perhaps evolutionists want to create their own definitions.

Perhaps you are not aware of the nature of technical jargon in science. Words are often used in highly technical fashion that are different than the usage of the same term outside that field. What is relevant here is how "contingent" is used in evolutionary biology, not any other usage.

DennisF said:
People who want to understand science in any depth cannot avoid understanding its origins and history. That is left instead for the existential mentality of contemporary American cancel-culture. Don't be put off by the title of Klaaren's book; he provides a much deeper insight into the thinking in Boyle's time about necessity and contingency and why that issue back then has carried into the present.

Unless Klaren or Boyle are evolutionary biologists they are irrelevant to this and it has nothing to do with politics.

DennisF · Dec 13, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
Perhaps you are not aware of the nature of technical jargon in science.

I am well aware of "technical jargon" in engineering and also in science. It is language, and language is malleable, but it also has a largely fixed nature in that the definitions of the main words remain fixed. This makes dictionaries of scientific and technical terms possible.

Hans Blaster said:
Words are often used in highly technical fashion that are different than the usage of the same term outside that field. What is relevant here is how "contingent" is used in evolutionary biology, not any other usage.

Unless Klaren or Boyle are evolutionary biologists they are irrelevant to this and it has nothing to do with politics.

Look, this discussion involved the words necessity and contingency. Those words in science have an origin that you seem to be unaware of. I am pointing you to significant explanation of the meanings of these words as they are used in science, and have been for centuries.

DennisF · Dec 13, 2024

Hans Blaster said:
The issue you "raised" was "directed". Gould says nothing about things being "directed".

You can start with what Gould is inferring by his "hopeful monster mechanism".

Hans Blaster said:
None of this is relevant (or interesting) as you claimed "elohim" referred to "genetic engineers". SMH.

I would not use such demeaning terminology, but rather abrupt appearence of whole groups of species is exactly what the opening chapters of Genesis describes. No mention of method beyond "speaking". (And our science is plenty advanced enough to understand the origin of lifeforms.)

I don't follow this. What is demeaning?

Hans Blaster said:
Yes, obviously. My writing isn't that obtuse.

Whomever Hyers was he didn't edit Genesis, so he is not relevant.

What do you know of Hyers? You are being rather presumptuous for someone attempting to appear "scientific" since you have no said anything correct about Hyers.

Hans Blaster said:
Miller? Oh, good grief, your references are way out of date.

Do you know anything beyond 5 years ago? The topic has a scientific history. Learn some history, then we can talk about it.

Hans Blaster · Dec 14, 2024

DennisF said:
I am well aware of "technical jargon" in engineering and also in science. It is language, and language is malleable, but it also has a largely fixed nature in that the definitions of the main words remain fixed. This makes dictionaries of scientific and technical terms possible.

It is good you are aware of jargon's existence.

DennisF said:
Look, this discussion involved the words necessity and contingency. Those words in science have an origin that you seem to be unaware of. I am pointing you to significant explanation of the meanings of these words as they are used in science, and have been for centuries.

There is no necessity here. Your the only one who things necessity comes into the conversation. Nothing about evolution is "necessary".

Hans Blaster · Dec 14, 2024

DennisF said:
You can start with what Gould is inferring by his "hopeful monster mechanism".

Gould was only equating changes to regulatory genes with an old idea about the emergence of new species. He was making no claims about directed changes.

DennisF said:
I don't follow this. What is demeaning?

You were referring to the emergence of species in Genesis as "abracadabra" which is a denigration of the Jewish creation story I will not make.

DennisF said:
What do you know of Hyers? You are being rather presumptuous for someone attempting to appear "scientific" since you have no said anything correct about Hyers.

Hyers, whomever he is, was not involved in editing and redacting the Torah two and half millenia ago, and that was the thing being referenced.

DennisF said:
Do you know anything beyond 5 years ago? The topic has a scientific history. Learn some history, then we can talk about it.

First. Miller-Urey was way more than 5 years ago. I learned about it in Jr High nearly 40 years ago and it wasn't recent then. Second, it is not clear why you started including references to abiogenesis several posts back. I know quite a bit of history (including history of science) but I have no tolerance for philosophers or theologians.

Diamond72 · Feb 8, 2025

Yttrium said:
The Theory of Evolution contradicts the depiction of God establishing the different organisms in Genesis of the Bible.

I am a theistic evolutionist even though I do not believe in the theory of evolution. Atheists try to hijack the truth to serve their own agenda.

Diamond72 · Feb 8, 2025

Yttrium said:
What is the probability of coming up with that exact list?

every time you roll the dice the odds are always the same.

Diamond72 · Feb 8, 2025

Yttrium said:
If I roll a 10-sided die a thousand times and record the result each time, I'll end up with a list of numbers. What is the probability of coming up with that exact list?

Actually the odds would be 10^1000 is a 1 followed by 1,000 zeros. The smallest number is point one (.1) followed by 1000 zeros. So you are still in the realm of chance or possible odds.

When the Bible says that nothing is impossible for God, it means that He has the power and ability to accomplish anything that aligns with His nature and will.

Diamond72 · Feb 8, 2025

DennisF said:
This says that evolutionary change occurs at varying rates. Yet Gould also recognized that random processes are not an explanation for how these changes occurred. That is the issue.

Evolution is not random so how is that the issue? Frameshift mutations are not random. God still proclaims the end from the beginning and watches over His word to perform what He says He will do. In computer engineering random is a term people use for a process that is too complicated to understand. But not to complicated for God. Maybe not even to complicated for our unconscious mind to process.

Diamond72 · Feb 8, 2025

DennisF said:
To me, that's a contrived explanation for something that they have no explanation for.

Trinitarian View: It suggests a reference to the Trinity, including the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This view, though more developed in the New Testament, is significant in Christian theology.
Divine Council: This perspective aligns with ancient Near Eastern texts, where a supreme deity consults with a council of divine beings. It reflects a cultural and theological context from that era.
Majestic Plural: This interpretation considers "us" as a royal or majestic plural, used to emphasize the grandeur and sovereignty of God.
Angelic Beings: Another view posits that God is addressing the angels or heavenly beings who are present as witnesses to creation.

We are given authority and God accomplishes His purpose in and through us.

DennisF · Feb 9, 2025

Diamond72 said:
Evolution is not random so how is that the issue? Frameshift mutations are not random. God still proclaims the end from the beginning and watches over His word to perform what He says He will do. In computer engineering random is a term people use for a process that is too complicated to understand. But not to complicated for God. Maybe not even to[o] complicated for our unconscious mind to process.

The word random as used in science and engineering comes from the mathematics of probability, which indicates a lack of a priori information to affect the outcome of an event so that all possible outcomes have equal probability, like the flip of an unbiased coin or roll of a die. Epistemologically, it means a lack of knowledge of causal precursors to an event. Sometimes, random is given to mean that there are no causes for the event, but this is not a scientific or philosophical use of the word.

Thus, when the word appears in biology and in evolutionary theory, it means that knowledge of the event is probabilistic, not deterministic. It does not mean that the event was not causal, only that the cause is unknown. No physical events are non-causal unless there are feedback loops in time itself. Consequently, some physical-causal explanation for how God created from already created matter-energy is possible, and the Genesis mandate to adam to take stewardship or dominion of the earth suggests that he is empowered, mentally and physically, to do so.

Perhaps the central question in the quest to understand the creation and evolution is whether the initial creation was such that it could evolve to the present state without intervention by God or gods (elohim) or not. The Intelligent Design school says no; evolutionary creationists say yes. I find that to be the crux of the creation-evolution issue.

DennisF · Feb 9, 2025

Michael 777 said:
There is much debate regarding the "truth" of science vs the "truth" of scripture and people get carried away on all sorts of theories, hypothetical or not and get quite arrogant and often combative against anybody who disagrees with them. Often coming back to basic principles can iron out a lot of these heated arguments and people can have rational discourse.

Good approach to the issue!

Michael 777 said:
Basic Principle 1: The Holy Scriptures are not scientific or mathematical and are not intended to be so. Their purpose is to teach us about God and His plans and purposes for our lives which have eternal consequences. The intention of the Bible is to lead us to God, and bring us into relationship with him so we can accept Jesus and be forgiven and set free. The scriptures are timeless intended for all generations so they cannot have some meaning that was never meant or understood by the original recipients.

I would add that, because the Bible is largely history, it is the important history or central thread for understanding the origin and destiny and purpose for humanity. By discovering the larger outworking of that history and how the history of ancient Israel is related to the empires of the West since the Middle Ages, the major history of the world comes into focus, for the Spanish, then British-Dutch, then American empires have dominated the direction of world history over much of this age. Instead of being a rather obscure people (Israelites), Greater Israel (northern kingdom) as Europeans and Anglospherians credibly fulfill the foretelling of God about Israel being a major population group and central to history. The lower kingdom, Judaea, does not have the population to credibly support the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet since Israel divided, it has its own role and destiny in eschatology. This might seem a bit off-point to your Principle, but it actually is a major feature of it yet to be discovered by most of modern Christendom.

Michael 777 said:
Basic Principle 2: Scripture is written using many different literary types (historical narrative, poetry, song, pastoral letters etc). Scripture must be interpreted in the correct way taking the literal type into account amongst other important literary devices. Science is written in the language of mathematics and logic. I can hear the naturalists already claiming superiority on this point BUT if somebody wants to know the real impactful, long lasting and life changing truths, they will not find them in mathematic and logic. For example, science can explain how the oxygen transfer rate can impact my lung capacity. Nice to know but if I want to know why I breathe everyday, what is my purpose for breathing, my purpose for living, science cannot tell me that. Actually science has failed to define what the essence of life actually is. What makes an organised clump of biological elements actually live? Scripture tells me how!

This Principle is under the category of the limitations of science. Science is not the only way we know truth. Another, for instance, is through the recording of history itself, and that includes biblical history. A study of the philosophy of science shows what science presupposes and what is more basic to it. I recommend Michael Polanyi's book Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy as a goldmine of inspiration on this topic. People who suppose that "science" is a religion substitute do not understand their own worldview.

Michael 777 said:
Basic Principle 3: For any scientific fact, and I must really highlight the word "FACT" to be proven as truth it has to undergo the 3 basic scientific principles. 1) An object of study must be measurable. 2) An object of study must be observable. 3)An object of study must be repeatable. Let's look at some examples of what is scientific fact and what is just theory. Gravity - It is observable as I can actually see an apple falling off a tree and hitting the ground. It is measurable as I can measure the height and time it takes to fall therefore calculating the speed of gravity. It is repeatable as I can repeat the same experiment over and over again and get the same results. Evolution - It is not measurable as nobody has actually got any biological organism to evolve in a controlled experiment. Yes I know about the thousands of bacteria that multiplied in a lab and they did show signs of metabolic change but that is adaptation not evolution because they remained bacteria. They did not suddenly become multicellular in nature nor did they have any additional DNA. Evolution is not observable as it supposedly takes billions of years and evolution is not repeatable for the same reasons. Therefore Evolution is a theory, a hypothesis and is not a proven fact. It is a popular theory so it gets thrown around like fact but it is not actually a proven fact. There is a lot of circular reasoning in evolution science. For example evolution science presumes it takes millions of years for an organism to evolve. A scientist one day finds a fossil of a slightly different shape and size than what has been found before. The scientist assumes, based on evolution science, that the fossil is an example of evolutionary change. Evolution science then uses that fossil as evidence to support evolution theory. Round and round the merry go round. The scientist could have also made other assumptions regarding the fossil but did not because of the perceived truthfulness of evolution theory.

When we go looking for truth we need to go looking in the right places. If I want to learn how to work out the area of a triangle, I will not consult scripture but rather a book on geometry. If I want to learn about the French Revolution, I will not go to the latest book on biology but will consult a historian. Why then do we throw the Bible and Science as supposedly apposing disciplines? I don't hear many people debunking Mozart with the latest scientific journal on sound waves. One is beautiful music, intangible yet can create waves of emotion in the listeners. The other is a cold hard mathematical calculator but does not capture the beauty of the music. The real reason, the truth behind the science vs theology debate is emotional not logical. Yes, I know many will disagree but the real reason people deny God is an emotional one, not one of logic. Logic will actually point us towards God.

If the point I made on evolution makes you upset and emotional, before just jumping on the warrior keyboard and responding, think about why does it make you emotional and upset. The implication of evolution theory is that there is no God, we are all just accidental and results of billions of years of mistakes and iterations. Essentially a life based on evolution has got no value, we are just a bunch of molecules in a churning universe destined to be compost one day. Entropy sucks in the physical world doesn't it? Why does the concept of being created, having a purpose, incredibly valuable in God's eyes upset so much, why is it so hard to accept? I do not want to be controversial or polarising but genuinely have a heart for those who believe their lives have little to no value. God created you and me, how and when does not really matter but know that your life, any life has incredible value and an eternal purpose.

This last principle is in the area of philosophy of science; see Polanyi. You will not be disappointed.

Michael 777 said:
If I want to know the truth about who I am, why I am here, how I should relate to others, what is love, what is forgiveness, what is sacrifice and what is true freedom then I will consult the only source of truth and that is scripture.

We should not go looking to the Bible for scientific facts or theories, quite simply because that is not its purpose and we should not go to science to look for the deeper truths, spiritual truths about life because that is not its purpose. If science could define God then he would cease to be God, because he cannot be defined by the very laws he created.

The Bible is not a science textbook, though science rests upon a larger foundation that is the biblical worldview. This topic is a discussion in itself.

Diamond72 · Feb 9, 2025

DennisF said:
Perhaps the central question in the quest to understand the creation and evolution is whether the initial creation was such that it could evolve to the present state without intervention by God or gods (elohim) or not

Einstein's famous phrase, "God does not play dice with the universe," reflects his belief that the universe operates according to predictable laws and principles, rather than being governed by randomness and chance.

My son is a computer engineer. So for him random has a different meaning then in Biology. I do know there are three different definitions for the word depending on the context.

We know God watches over His word to perform what He said He would do.

Jeremiah 1:12 (NIV): "The LORD said to me, 'You have seen correctly, for I am watching to see that my word is fulfilled.'"

Isaiah 46:10 (NIV): "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'"

Diamond72 · Feb 9, 2025

DennisF said:
I would add that, because the Bible is largely history, it is the important history or central thread for understanding the origin and destiny and purpose for humanity.

A lot of research goes into how man went from a food gather to a food producer. We are told Adam was the first to plow the land to produce food. We know a lot of law and civil engineering came from Moses. They say if people had followed the teaching of Moses there would not have been a black plague.

dlamberth · Feb 9, 2025

Diamond72 said:
Einstein's famous phrase, "God does not play dice with the universe," reflects his belief that the universe operates according to predictable laws and principles, rather than being governed by randomness and chance.

The lens and focus which Einstein looked thru was that of a theoretical physicist. That type of science has a completely different lens and focus than a Biologist would have. Randomness very much comes into play in biophysics. There are a number of google articles covering randomness in biology.

Diamond72 · Feb 10, 2025

dlamberth said:
That type of science has a completely different lens and focus than a Biologist would have.

Yes everyone has their own explanation for random. Evolutionists tend to make things up as they go along calling fiction science. Even though I am a theistic evolutionist, I do not believe the theory of evolution based on random mutations. God is clearly in control and He declares the end from the beginning and he watches over His word to perform what He said He was going to do. We see this in the first and the last chapter in our Bible.

Rev 20 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

Isaiah 55:11: So is My Word that goes out from My Mouth: MY Word will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Gene2memE · Feb 10, 2025

Diamond72 said:
Einstein's famous phrase, "God does not play dice with the universe," reflects his belief that the universe operates according to predictable laws and principles, rather than being governed by randomness and chance.

That was in relation to his objections to some of the implications of quantum mechanics.

Einstein later wrote "God tirelessly plays dice under laws which he has himself prescribed" (referencing his earlier phrase) and had to rework some of his views about quantum mechanics and particle interactions.

It appears, to our current best understanding, that there is indeed true randomness involved in quantum mechanics.

Diamond72 · Feb 11, 2025

Gene2memE said:
It appears, to our current best understanding, that there is indeed true randomness involved in quantum mechanics.

Complexity and randomness are not the same thing. Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean it's random. Complexity can arise from intricate systems and processes that follow specific rules and patterns, even if those patterns are not immediately apparent.

In the context of physics, for example, many phenomena can appear random or chaotic but are actually governed by underlying laws and principles. The same can be true for other fields, like computer science or engineering, where complex algorithms and systems might seem unpredictable but are based on deterministic processes.

Complexity can sometimes mask the underlying order, making things appear random when they are not

Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

Active Member

On August Recess

On August Recess

Active Member

Active Member

On August Recess

On August Recess

Dispensationalist 72

Dispensationalist 72

Dispensationalist 72

Dispensationalist 72

Dispensationalist 72

Active Member

Active Member

Dispensationalist 72

Dispensationalist 72

Senior Contributor

Dispensationalist 72

Newbie

Dispensationalist 72

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency