Evolution conflict and division

[Job 33:6]

I am aware of why the restriction exists, but that restriction is a major impediment for scientific models being treated as factual approximations. If there are more than efficient causes, then one of the basic contingencies for scientific truth is violated.

Scientific models only include the causes they can operationalize, usually efficient causes, but that doesn’t mean other kinds of causes don’t exist. Reality can contain final, formal, or transcendent causes without invalidating a model’s predictive success. Science is about scope, not ontology.

methodological restrictions are ontological restrictions. These are two different things.

 

[Fervent]

Scientific models only include the causes they can operationalize, usually efficient causes, but that doesn’t mean other kinds of causes don’t exist. Reality can contain final, formal, or transcendent causes without invalidating a model’s predictive success. Science is about scope, not ontology.

Again, I am aware. But science proposes an ontology(materialism) and is talked about as if that ontology is naive. And whle lip service is paid to the idea that science can't prove things, in practice it is treated as if it is discovering facts with certainty and not just building an iterative descriptive model.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's directed at people who treat it as if there is some impossible barrier between what they call "microevolution" and "macroevolution"...kind of like if someone was cclaiming that "microerosion" can explain grooves but the grand canyon requires "macroerosion"...to people who think one happens and not the other, my question is what is the supposed barrier?

Yep. I used to ask that question with YECs. None of them could ever come up with a barrier.

Can science proceed without causal closure?

Not completely. Science can find laws thereby. Kepler's Laws, for example. His laws accurately predict how the solar system works. But until Newton, there was no theory. And then we had the cause.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Efficient causes imply that the past events are responsible for current conditions, but God is the end and the beginning. Which means that not only do past events cause current conditions, but current conditions are being moved toward an end. It's the difference between the universe having a telos(purpose) and not having a telos. It's a metaphysical issue, and isn't a weakness for science only a reality that some questions are not susceptible to scientific inquiry.

Thank you for your reply and explanation for your interpretation but you excluded the, “in light of the Scriptures …” part with those I provided. Any additional thoughts?

Additionally:
”For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.“
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The above Scripture appears to declare the cause, effect and purpose for His creation. Thoughts?

 

[Fervent]

Yep. I used to ask that question with YECs. None of them could ever come up with a barrier.

Yeah, I pretty much expect no clear barrier to be furnished.

Not completely. Science can find laws thereby. Kepler's Laws, for example. His laws accurately predict how the solar system works. But until Newton, there was no theory. And then we had the cause.

Sure, but if causal closure(the notion that the physical can only be affected by physical causes) is true, then God can't exist or else "physical" becomes a term that is so foreign from our sensible understanding of it to lose all meaning. So if scientific modeling requires causal closure then it excludes God by fiat.

 

[Fervent]

Thank you for your reply and explanation for your interpretation but you excluded the, “in light of the Scriptures …” part with those I provided. Any additional thoughts?

Additionally:
”For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.“
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The above Scripture appears to declare the cause, effect and purpose for His creation. Thoughts?

I am not sure what you're getting at with this, but I think one of us is misunderstanding because the issue isn't that scientific modeling relies on efficient causation, but that it only considers efficient causation and no other sort of causation. The only version of a god compatible with such modeling is a deist conception where he gets the ball rolling and then leaves it to work out like clockwork. A God that is actively involved in His creation not only in the past, but in the present and future as well is not compatible with that sort of modeling on a fundamental level. And I am not saying this as an attack on science, only on science misused to speak to issues it doesn't have the power to.

 

[Job 33:6]

Again, I am aware. But science proposes an ontology(materialism) and is talked about as if that ontology is naive. And whle lip service is paid to the idea that science can't prove things, in practice it is treated as if it is discovering facts with certainty and not just building an iterative descriptive model.

It’s true that popular accounts of science often overstate certainty, but the method itself is iterative and descriptive. Science builds models that are tested, refined, and predictive, not declarations of absolute ontology. Treating science as an authority on metaphysical claims is a philosophical mistake, not a methodological one.

Science assumes methodological naturalism, i.e., only testable natural causes are modeled.

However, It does not assume ontological naturalism, many scientists are theists, and science itself is metaphysically neutral.

 

[Fervent]

It’s true that popular accounts of science often overstate certainty, but the method itself is iterative and descriptive. Science builds models that are tested, refined, and predictive, not declarations of absolute ontology. Treating science as an authority on metaphysical claims is a philosophical mistake, not a methodological one.

Sure, but it's a culturally enforced mistake because it's effectiveness in technological matters is conflated with its approximation of truth. And causal closure is a sacred cow in academic circles, which is why so many educated people end up believing that having a rich intellectual life is contrary to having a robust faith.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

I am not sure what you're getting at with this, but I think one of us is misunderstanding because the issue isn't that scientific modeling relies on efficient causation, but that it only considers efficient causation and no other sort of causation. The only version of a god compatible with such modeling is a deist conception where he gets the ball rolling and then leaves it to work out like clockwork. A God that is actively involved in His creation not only in the past, but in the present and future as well is not compatible with that sort of modeling on a fundamental level. And I am not saying this as an attack on science, only on science misused to speak to issues it doesn't have the power to.

Well, I am sure the misunderstanding is on me. I am not trying to engage in any real dialogue since my understanding of evolutionary theory is, at best, remedial. I am simply stating the Scriptures I quoted in my previous posts seem to provide the platform for God to operate, facilitate and guide His creation from start to finish. My simple mind cannot fathom God‘s creation existing without His personal involvement and the Scriptures I quoted seem to indicate He is actively orchestrating everything that exists. So therefore, I can’t see how any scientific process could point to the exclusion of the Creator. Anyway, just enjoying the dialogue between those of you who understand the theory of evolution.

blessings

 

[Fervent]

Well, I am sure the misunderstanding is on me. I am not trying to engage in any real dialogue since my understanding of evolutionary theory is, at best, remedial. I am simply stating the Scriptures I quoted in my previous posts seem to provide the platform for God to operate, facilitate and guide His creation from start to finish. My simple mind cannot fathom God‘s creation existing without His personal involvement and the Scriptures I quoted seem to indicate He is actively orchestrating everything that exists. So therefore, I can’t see how any scientific process could point to the exclusion of the Creator. Anyway, just enjoying the dialogue between those of you who understand the theory of evolution.

blessings

I agree that God is actively interceding, which is exactly my issue with scientific modeling. It's a philosophical problem, because science assumes that the only cause are those describable by fixed "natural laws"...so by the very nature of science any sort of intercessory God is excluded. Its not that science assumes God doesn't exist, it simply can only tolerate a God that put the wheels in motion and let things go as they would. My full issue is that science is treated as naive understanding simply taking reality as it is without imposition, when in fact there are metaphysical assumptions that are entrenched in the method.

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree that God is actively interceding, which is exactly my issue with scientific modeling. It's a philosophical problem, because science assumes that the only cause are those describable by fixed "natural laws"...so by the very nature of science any sort of intercessory God is excluded. Its not that science assumes God doesn't exist, it simply can only tolerate a God that put the wheels in motion and let things go as they would. My full issue is that science is treated as naive understanding simply taking reality as it is without imposition, when in fact there are metaphysical assumptions that are entrenched in the method.

It seems like we have to keep turning back to this over and over again.

Scientific laws describe patterns of regularity, not the total causal story.

Science models regularities in nature, like gravity, not the total causal structure of reality. Describing events in terms of natural laws does not imply those laws are ontologically ultimate or exclude concurrent divine action. An intercessory God is excluded only if one assumes that scientific models must be metaphysically exhaustive, which is a philosophical move, not a scientific one.

We understand your concern with culture around scientism, but you keep sliding that over into a separate topic of what science itself is.

One is the cultural misuse of science as a metaphysical authority, which we agree is a real problem. The other is whether scientific modeling itself commits one to deism or ontological naturalism, which doesn't follow. And these are two distinct concepts.

 

[Fervent]

It seems like we have to keep turning back to this over and over again.

Scientific laws describe patterns of regularity, not the total causal story.

Science models regularities in nature, like gravity, not the total causal structure of reality. Describing events in terms of natural laws does not imply those laws are ontologically ultimate or exclude concurrent divine action. An intercessory God is excluded only if one assumes that scientific models must be metaphysically exhaustive, which is a philosophical move, not a scientific one.

We understand your concern with culture around scientism, but you keep sliding that over into a separate topic of what science itself is.

I don't think that the philosophical move can be excluded from the typical understanding of science, especially given the disrespect that philosophy receives in the modern intellectual milieu. The distinction is far too often treated as a technicality, with the full import not being recognized.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think that the philosophical move can be excluded from the typical understanding of science, especially given the disrespect that philosophy receives in the modern intellectual milieu. The distinction is far too often treated as a technicality, with the full import not being recognized.

I understand the concern you’re raising, and I think it reflects a real cultural problem. Science is often treated socially as if its success in modeling and technology amounted to a complete account of reality, and that does put pressure on faith.

But that cultural effect doesn’t change what the method itself logically entails. Philosophical questions aren’t settled by how ideas are commonly used or felt in practice, but by what follows from them conceptually. Conflating methodological limits with ontological claims remains a philosophical error, even if it’s widespread or reinforced by academic culture.

In other words, the issue lies with interpretation and overreach, not with scientific modeling as such.

And this, quite frankly, is an issue not just with atheists, but with theists as well. It is more of an issue with our modern culture than it is an issue with science itself.

And I just want to make sure that we do not lose sight of this. We don't want to slide back and forth between categories, confusing cultural issues with scientific ones.

 

[Fervent]

I understand the concern you’re raising, and I think it reflects a real cultural problem. Science is often treated socially as if its success in modeling and technology amounted to a complete account of reality, and that does put pressure on faith.

But that cultural effect doesn’t change what the method itself logically entails. Philosophical questions aren’t settled by how ideas are commonly used or felt in practice, but by what follows from them conceptually. Conflating methodological limits with ontological claims remains a philosophical error, even if it’s widespread or reinforced by academic culture.

In other words, the issue lies with interpretation and overreach, not with scientific modeling as such.

And this, quite frankly, is an issue not just with atheists, but with theists as well. It is more of an issue with our modern culture than it is an issue with science itself.

I see it as a pedagogical issue, rather than a simple philosophical one. I don't think I've ever been in a science classroom that doesn't assert "everything is made of matter" and there is no countervailing education that raises serious philosophical challenges outside of post-secondary education.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see it as a pedagogical issue, rather than a simple philosophical one. I don't think I've ever been in a science classroom that doesn't assert "everything is made of matter" and there is no countervailing education that raises serious philosophical challenges outside of post-secondary education.

I tend to see it as a broader cultural issue that extends beyond science classrooms. Even in churches, discussions of Genesis are often shaped by scientific concordism. Here we are, raised in the church and perhaps even homeschooled, yet we still fall prey to concordist thinking.

 

[Fervent]

I tend to think of it more as a broader cultural issue, extending beyond science classrooms. Even in churches, we can hardly have a discussion about Genesis without scientific concordism driving interpretation. Here we are, born and raised in the church, perhaps even homeschooled, yet we are still victims of concordism.

I agree it is a broader issue, and when I say pedagogy I'm not restricting it to the science classroom. The secular approach to education combined with a general hostility towards philosophy in most educational settings built on misperception about fanciful metaphysical constructs makes education a privileged space for metaphysical naturalism. Because students are not taught about the species of inference and their strengths/weaknesses and are not exposed to skeptical challenges while simultaneously being taught that if something isn't "science" then it's not worth spending time discussing intellectually. Few and far between are people, even among professional scientists, who truly understand and appreciate that scientific theories are models that cannot be proven false, only modified until they break and are replaced by another model. Concordism is embedded in how we talk about science, such as the notion of "scientific facts".

Evolution is a battleground, and I believe that such division is bound to have happened since there isn't a clear understanding of what science can and can't accomplish.

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree it is a broader issue, and when I say pedagogy I'm not restricting it to the science classroom. The secular approach to education combined with a general hostility towards philosophy in most educational settings built on misperception about fanciful metaphysical constructs makes education a privileged space for metaphysical naturalism. Because students are not taught about the species of inference and their strengths/weaknesses and are not exposed to skeptical challenges while simultaneously being taught that if something isn't "science" then it's not worth spending time discussing intellectually. Few and far between are people, even among professional scientists, who truly understand and appreciate that scientific theories are models that cannot be proven false, only modified until they break and are replaced by another model. Concordism is embedded in how we talk about science, such as the notion of "scientific facts".

Evolution is a battleground, and I believe that such division is bound to have happened since there isn't a clear understanding of what science can and can't accomplish.

Sure, and what would you propose as a realistic solution? Should students be taught philosophy earlier so they can better understand metaphysical and ontological distinctions?

 

[Fervent]

Sure, and what would you propose as a realistic solution? Should students be taught philosophy earlier so they can better understand metaphysical and ontological distinctions?

Yeah, I think a high school course on philosophy of knowledge would be a step in the right direction, at least introducing them to skeptical problems like Hume's fork and the diallelus. Maybe a semester of philosophy of science where they're introduced to things like the demarcation problem. Though the problem is really only a minor part of a much bigger pedagogical problem in the US since students are essentially trained to be compliant factory workers rather than actually developing independent critical thinking skills.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see it as a pedagogical issue, rather than a simple philosophical one. I don't think I've ever been in a science classroom that doesn't assert "everything is made of matter" and there is no countervailing education that raises serious philosophical challenges outside of post-secondary education.

I've never been in a science classroom where a teacher asserted that everything is made of matter. Aside from the trivial fact that energy is not matter, science never says that physical things are all there is.

There could be teachers who actually say that; I just haven't ever encountered them. And I taught science/subjects within science for years.

 

[Fervent]

I've never been in a science classroom where a teacher asserted that everything is made of matter. Aside from the trivial fact that energy is not matter, science never says that physical things are all there is.

There could be teachers who actually say that; I just haven't ever encountered them. And I taught science/subjects within science for years.

What level science are you teaching? In the 6-8 grade classes I've seen the curriculum for when it comes to units on matter they all teach that it is what everything is made from, and that energy and matter are different forms of the same thing. I suspect it's not just in my school district, but maybe it is.