Evolutionary nonsense

[mark kennedy]

I think you are being inaccurate and unfair, Mark.

TEs do not deny God's miracles. We don't discuss them within the context of evolution, because evolution is not a miracle. But we don't disown miracles either. We agree they happen and that they fall outside the limits of science.

What is more to discuss?

Plenty, and I don't make those statements lightly, TEs can be very candid and even scathing with Creationists but never seem to flare with the same indignation when interacting with atheistic materialists. I've never heard an apologetic defense of the miracles of the New Testament and they routinely dismiss the early chapters of Genesis as mythology.

What do you mean by "naturalistic assumption"? What is your definition of this term?

How many times have we done this? You still think I'm going to chase questions like that in circles. I can and often have given you clear and concise definitions for miracles in Genesis 1 and there are at least three that are profoundly important to Origins Theology. Did you seriously miss every single one of them including 'bara'?

Do you not agree that God works in and through nature just as much (indeed far more frequently) than by non-natural miraculous events?

No, I know where that goes and the answer is no, I don't buy the 'guided evolution' equivocation argument. Every time a believer becomes a new creature in Christ it's a non-natural miracle so no, I don't equivocate that with a law of nature working in concert with God's will.

Are you not attributing to the theory of evolution much more than it actually states or even implies?

Your simply using the word 'evolution' wrong here. Evolution happens after life has started and the operative word is change in it's scientific definition. Evolution has nothing to do with creation, it's subsequent to the creation of life and the naturalistic explanations are mutually exclusive with the Biblical testimony regarding creation.

Nearly half the Nicene Creed is focused on God as Creator, the Incarnation and Christ being the Creator. Most of the rest is impossible to affirm as natural phenomenon.

I know what evolution is and it's irrelevant to creation. The only way evolution gets to be an issue is if it's expanded to include Darwinian naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to the Big Bang and you know it.

 

[Skybringr]

Theistic evolutionists' main adversary is not even young earth creationism, it's actually scientists..
..they lead people to believe in a presupposition that the laws of nature are unbreakable and immovable.

And this causes creationists to believe theistic evolutionists are siding with scientists, and that we somehow dismiss God's preeminence of the universe.

Atheist scientists cast their shadow over theistic evolutionists so that we falsely resemble their ignorance of miracles and so forth.

TE's are no less aware of God and His Creation, miracles, and dealings with men then any Christian.

 

[mark kennedy]

Theistic evolutionists' main adversary is not even young earth creationism, it's actually scientists..
..they lead people to believe in a presupposition that the laws of nature are unbreakable and immovable.

I just think by trying to bend Scripture to fit a naturalistic worldview. Consequently, they demean the Scriptures and play fast and loose with the sciences.

And this causes creationists to believe theistic evolutionists are siding with scientists, and that we somehow dismiss God's preeminence of the universe.

No one actually 'sides' with scientists, they either agree with their conclusions or remain skeptical. The line of demarcation is natural vs. miracle.

Atheist scientists cast their shadow over theistic evolutionists so that we falsely resemble their ignorance of miracles and so forth.

TE's are no less aware of God and His Creation, miracles, and dealings with men then any Christian.

I don't think so, I think Theistic Evolutionists have been sold a lemon that keeps breaking down on them. It's weak on the sciences and antagonistic toward the doctrine of creation, it's not deliberate in most cases but none the less, that's the effect. I seldom doubt that Theistic Evolutionists are sincere in their faith but their treatment of the Scriptures leaves a lot to be desired. I'm also far from impressed with their scientific discussions.

The problem isn't science and it's not the Scriptures. The problem is Darwinism and it is neither scientific nor compatible with Biblical Christian theism.

 

[gluadys]

Plenty, and I don't make those statements lightly, TEs can be very candid and even scathing with Creationists but never seem to flare with the same indignation when interacting with atheistic materialists.

I don't bother much with atheists. I am more concerned with the bad rep which anti-evolutionary Christians give to Christianity. It is a no-go for evangelism these days. It tends to generate atheism even among those raised in the church.

As I see it, the best antidote to atheism is a robust theistic understanding of evolution. It does cut out the need to debate atheists on scientific grounds, where one is sure to lose out to the facts and turns the debate into theology where it belongs.

My experience is that most atheists are not interested in discussing theology. They prefer to present anti-evolution as the default Christian position so they can mock it.

I've never heard an apologetic defense of the miracles of the New Testament and they routinely dismiss the early chapters of Genesis as mythology.

It is you who react to "mythology" as "dismissal". I have a great respect for biblical mythology and consider it to be part of what the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical authors to write. I believe it is to be reverenced and studied with the same seriousness as every other part of scripture.

How many times have we done this? You still think I'm going to chase questions like that in circles. I can and often have given you clear and concise definitions for miracles in Genesis 1 and there are at least three that are profoundly important to Origins Theology. Did you seriously miss every single one of them including 'bara'?

I didn't ask for a definition of miracle. I asked for a definition of naturalistic assumptions. As far as 'bara' goes, its only implication is that God is always the subject of this verb. It does not imply that God's action in every instance is miraculous. For example, when scripture says that God created (bara) the smith, does it imply miraculous conception?

No, I know where that goes and the answer is no, I don't buy the 'guided evolution' equivocation argument. Every time a believer becomes a new creature in Christ it's a non-natural miracle so no, I don't equivocate that with a law of nature working in concert with God's will.

Well, you are talking apples and oranges here. The miracle of new birth can co-exist with the non-miracle of evolution and both are still God's work.

Your simply using the word 'evolution' wrong here. Evolution happens after life has started and the operative word is change in it's scientific definition. Evolution has nothing to do with creation, it's subsequent to the creation of life and the naturalistic explanations are mutually exclusive with the Biblical testimony regarding creation.

If God created life to evolve--and I believe you agree this is the case--then evolution is a consequence of creation, just as gravity, for example, is a consequence of the creation of matter and light is a consequence of the creation of photons. Evolution is a process created by God, just like reproduction or the formation of stars and planets.

Nearly half the Nicene Creed is focused on God as Creator, the Incarnation and Christ being the Creator. Most of the rest is impossible to affirm as natural phenomenon.

Granted. That is why I said you were being inaccurate and unfair in your assessment of the TE attitude toward miracles.

What we do have to take into account is that as Creator, Christ created the process of evolution and so provided for the history of evolutionary change.

I know what evolution is and it's irrelevant to creation. The only way evolution gets to be an issue is if it's expanded to include Darwinian naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to the Big Bang and you know it.

I think you mean "scientific" assumptions. Darwinism refers only to biological evolution.

So what to do with the evidence (all evidence, not just biological evidence) that confirms deep time? Just write it off as an illusion?

Does that not make God the Creator of an illusory creation? Have you become Hindu on us?

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't bother much with atheists. I am more concerned with the bad rep which anti-evolutionary Christians give to Christianity. It is a no-go for evangelism these days. It tends to generate atheism even among those raised in the church.

The modern mindset is opposed to anything theistic, miraculous or religious. There is nothing anti-evolutionist about the doctrine of creation since evolution comes after life has started, evolution is a living theory. Evangelism is based on the Gospel and as I have emphasized again and again, creation is inextricably linked to the Incarnation.

As I see it, the best antidote to atheism is a robust theistic understanding of evolution. It does cut out the need to debate atheists on scientific grounds, where one is sure to lose out to the facts and turns the debate into theology where it belongs.

Evolution has nothing to do with it, the age of the earth is another distraction. The doctrine of creation is focused, almost exclusively with the origin of life not how it developed over time. Darwinism is the problem and the requisite naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to the Big Bang. The doctrine of creation is a theological issue and selling out to a Darwinian world view is fatal to Christian theism and if you doubt that you should take a good look at Christianity in Europe.

My experience is that most atheists are not interested in discussing theology. They prefer to present anti-evolution as the default Christian position so they can mock it.

When it comes to Christian theism they don't know much and could care less. All they want from Christians is to deny the doctrine of creation, not that they have a clue what it is or what it means.

It is you who react to "mythology" as "dismissal". I have a great respect for biblical mythology and consider it to be part of what the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical authors to write. I believe it is to be reverenced and studied with the same seriousness as every other part of scripture.

Mythology is the work of pagans, there is no such thing in the Hebrew Scriptures.

I didn't ask for a definition of miracle. I asked for a definition of naturalistic assumptions. As far as 'bara' goes, its only implication is that God is always the subject of this verb. It does not imply that God's action in every instance is miraculous. For example, when scripture says that God created (bara) the smith, does it imply miraculous conception?

I'm not chasing this in circles, 'bara' means a new creation and it's used three times in reference to the creation of man.

Well, you are talking apples and oranges here. The miracle of new birth can co-exist with the non-miracle of evolution and both are still God's work.

Actually I'm comparing miracles to natural phenomenon and making a clear distinction between the two.

If God created life to evolve--and I believe you agree this is the case--then evolution is a consequence of creation, just as gravity, for example, is a consequence of the creation of matter and light is a consequence of the creation of photons. Evolution is a process created by God, just like reproduction or the formation of stars and planets.

Yes, based on molecular mechanisms that had to be fully developed in order to produce adaptive evolutionary changes.

Granted. That is why I said you were being inaccurate and unfair in your assessment of the TE attitude toward miracles.

I don't think so.

What we do have to take into account is that as Creator, Christ created the process of evolution and so provided for the history of evolutionary change.

That process of evolution was created in living systems, fully formed at creation.

I think you mean "scientific" assumptions. Darwinism refers only to biological evolution.

Darwinism refers to, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

So what to do with the evidence (all evidence, not just biological evidence) that confirms deep time? Just write it off as an illusion?

No, just dismiss it as irrelevant.

Does that not make God the Creator of an illusory creation? Have you become Hindu on us?

No, God created the heavens and the earth, there's nothing illusory about it. God created life, all life including man, inside of 6 days. That's Biblical Christianity, not some kind of Hindu mysticism.

 

[gluadys]

The modern mindset is opposed to anything theistic, miraculous or religious.

Unfortunately, true. And I think the unnecessary conflation of anti-modernism with anti-evolutionary thinking by the church had a lot to do with consolidating that.

There is nothing anti-evolutionist about the doctrine of creation since evolution comes after life has started, evolution is a living theory. Evangelism is based on the Gospel and as I have emphasized again and again, creation is inextricably linked to the Incarnation.

So far, so good.

Evolution has nothing to do with it, the age of the earth is another distraction. The doctrine of creation is focused, almost exclusively with the origin of life not how it developed over time. Darwinism is the problem and the requisite naturalistic assumptions going all the way back to the Big Bang. The doctrine of creation is a theological issue and selling out to a Darwinian world view is fatal to Christian theism and if you doubt that you should take a good look at Christianity in Europe.

What I don't understand is why you call the problem "Darwinism" especially when you connect it to the Big Bang. Evolution (Darwinism) has nothing to do with the Big Bang. As you say, evolution is subsequent to the origin of life and the Darwinian theory of evolution refers only to biological species. Whereas the Big Bang was a transition from a totally quantum state universe into a universe with the possibility of becoming material, developing atoms, stars, galaxies, molecules, solar systems--all things that happened prior to the existence of life. Indeed they had to happen prior to the origin of life, for until they did, there was no habitat for life. So, there is nothing "Darwinian" about these.

Perhaps you are actually railing against "scientism" (the philosophy that science is the only root of knowledge and anything not explainable by science does not exist). It would clarify matters considerably if you clarified what you mean by "Darwinism" outside of biology.

When it comes to Christian theism they don't know much and could care less. All they want from Christians is to deny the doctrine of creation, not that they have a clue what it is or what it means.

True. So, I find debate with atheists unproductive. Some are willing to let believers believe what they will without getting hostile--so they will not debate theology. Others want to be hostile, so they insist that only an anti-evolution form of Christian belief is "really Christian" and won't debate an evolution-friendly form of Christian belief. A very few are so hostile they denounce TE, but most don't understand the nuances of TE and misrepresent it, making their attacks mere blows to a straw man.

Mythology is the work of pagans, there is no such thing in the Hebrew Scriptures.

We must be working with different definitions of "mythology".

I'm not chasing this in circles, 'bara' means a new creation and it's used three times in reference to the creation of man.

I agree that 'bara' means "create" or "make" and refers specifically to creation by God, who is always the subject of this verb. What is your source for saying it refers specifically to "new" creation?

In any case, it does not refer specifically to miraculous creation.

Actually I'm comparing miracles to natural phenomenon and making a clear distinction between the two.

That's fine, but you are still avoiding a definition of "naturalistic assumptions".

That process of evolution was created in living systems, fully formed at creation.

All living systems are "fully formed" whatever that means. Less than fully formed systems can only live as embryos in seeds, eggs or in utero until they have completed their development. For most of the history of life on earth, all living systems were unicellular and no embryonic development was needed. Each new cell emerged "fully formed" from its parent.

Darwinism refers to, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

OK, I see where you are coming from now. But you have misunderstood Darwin's reference to the inorganic world. He was not extending his views on the biological world to the inorganic world. He was taking what was already known about the inorganic world and applying that as well to the organic world.

For the inorganic world, the world of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, had already been explored and its processes had already been shown to be natural, not miraculous. Contrary to earlier beliefs it was understood that phenomena such as an eclipse of the sun, a bolt of lightning, a volcanic eruption or an earthquake were not miraculous interpositions but ordinary natural phenomena, governed by natural laws.

Note as well, that all of these refer to changes in the inorganic world, not to the original creation of the inorganic world.

Through the principle of natural selection, Darwin asserts, the same can be said of changes in the biological world. And as with the inorganic world, the reference is to changes in the biosphere, not to the original creation of life.

So the correct understanding of the statement cited would still limit "Darwinism" to biology, but it makes biology a natural phenomenon of the same order as inorganic phenomena i.e. subsequent to the original creation (whether of matter, stars, earth or life) changes in these things occur through natural process, not miraculous interposition.

At least that is the way it would look to Darwin. Since his time we have also come to understand that the formation of stars, galaxies and planets are also changes in the distribution of matter/energy and not in themselves the result of miraculous interposition. But again, this came about through direct study of inorganic matter, not through an extension of biological principles into the inorganic world.

So, better, I think, to keep the term "Darwinism" to its biological reference. It is confusing to extend it to all of science.

No, just dismiss it as irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what?

No, God created the heavens and the earth, there's nothing illusory about it. God created life, all life including man, inside of 6 days. That's Biblical Christianity, not some kind of Hindu mysticism.

Your first and second statements contradict themselves. For the non-illusory evidence is clear that all life did not originate inside of six days. The second statement can only be factual if the evidence is an illusion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Unfortunately, true. And I think the unnecessary conflation of anti-modernism with anti-evolutionary thinking by the church had a lot to do with consolidating that.

No, Liberal Theology is based on the same naturalistic assumptions as Darwinism. That's the whole problem.

What I don't understand is why you call the problem "Darwinism" especially when you connect it to the Big Bang. Evolution (Darwinism) has nothing to do with the Big Bang. As you say, evolution is subsequent to the origin of life and the Darwinian theory of evolution refers only to biological species. Whereas the Big Bang was a transition from a totally quantum state universe into a universe with the possibility of becoming material, developing atoms, stars, galaxies, molecules, solar systems--all things that happened prior to the existence of life. Indeed they had to happen prior to the origin of life, for until they did, there was no habitat for life. So, there is nothing "Darwinian" about these.

Darwinism is the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to the beginning, in cosmology that's called the Big Bang. What I said was not obscure, you have done what Theistic Evolutionists do, you have conflated and confused the issue, you always do.

Perhaps you are actually railing against "scientism" (the philosophy that science is the only root of knowledge and anything not explainable by science does not exist). It would clarify matters considerably if you clarified what you mean by "Darwinism" outside of biology.

I have many times and many ways and not once have I called it scientism. I know what I'm talking about and so do you.

True. So, I find debate with atheists unproductive. Some are willing to let believers believe what they will without getting hostile--so they will not debate theology. Others want to be hostile, so they insist that only an anti-evolution form of Christian belief is "really Christian" and won't debate an evolution-friendly form of Christian belief. A very few are so hostile they denounce TE, but most don't understand the nuances of TE and misrepresent it, making their attacks mere blows to a straw man.

Defending the faith is never a waste of time, an apologetic defense against the slanderous attacks from the unbelieving world is not only warranted, it's required. Theistic Evolutionists continually attack and undermine the doctrine of creation by confronting creationists and doing little else. Not once have I seen you defend the Scriptures but you are relentless in your criticisms of those who would accept the clear testimony of Scripture as it is written. I denounce Liberal Theology, Darwinism, Pragmatism, Scientific Objectivism because they are nothing more then systematic unbelief.

I know what Darwinism is and it's an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going back to the Big Bang and so do you.

We must be working with different definitions of "mythology".

No, I'm working from a real definition while you are trying to soft sell a fallacious one.

Myth

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.​

Notice some of the elements in #1, 'without a determinable basis of fact'. This is not the case with the Hebrew Scriptures, in fact, they are the best living history from antiquity. Of course there is no 'natural explanation', in the sense that nature doesn't have a phenomenon that can account for something like God creating in the sense of 'bara'. It's a miracle in the strongest possible sense of the word.

Notice the other terms used: 'invented', 'imaginary', 'fictitious', 'unproved', 'false'.

I agree that 'bara' means "create" or "make" and refers specifically to creation by God, who is always the subject of this verb. What is your source for saying it refers specifically to "new" creation?

Created 'bara', (Strong's 1254 בָּרָא bä·rä') to create, shape, form (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1), life (Gen 1:21) and Man (used 3 times in Gen 1:27) Brown-Driver-Briggs​

In any case, it does not refer specifically to miraculous creation.

If you don't believe creation is a miracle then you cannot possibly believe in miracles, 'Bara' is the the strongest word in the Scriptures for a miracle.

CREATE: bara' (baw-raw) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as 'asah, "to make" (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yasar, "to form" (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, "to establish." (F. F. Bruce, and W. E. Vine. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)​

See also Made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 )

That's fine, but you are still avoiding a definition of "naturalistic assumptions".

No, your just running the conversation in circles, circular arguments are your fallacy of choice. Like all Theistic Evolutionists you will change up the fallacies like the primary ad hominem to equivocation fallacies but you seem fixated on circular arguments, a personal preference as far as I can tell.

All living systems are "fully formed" whatever that means. Less than fully formed systems can only live as embryos in seeds, eggs or in utero until they have completed their development. For most of the history of life on earth, all living systems were unicellular and no embryonic development was needed. Each new cell emerged "fully formed" from its parent.

I think you know exactly what is meant by 'fully formed', round and round it goes, where it stops no body knows...

OK, I see where you are coming from now. But you have misunderstood Darwin's reference to the inorganic world. He was not extending his views on the biological world to the inorganic world. He was taking what was already known about the inorganic world and applying that as well to the organic world.

No, you have misunderstood the word 'All' as in:

"all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition." (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Darwinism, like Theistic Evolution, is just one long argument against creation.

For the inorganic world, the world of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, had already been explored and its processes had already been shown to be natural, not miraculous. Contrary to earlier beliefs it was understood that phenomena such as an eclipse of the sun, a bolt of lightning, a volcanic eruption or an earthquake were not miraculous interpositions but ordinary natural phenomena, governed by natural laws.

Note as well, that all of these refer to changes in the inorganic world, not to the original creation of the inorganic world.

Through the principle of natural selection, Darwin asserts, the same can be said of changes in the biological world. And as with the inorganic world, the reference is to changes in the biosphere, not to the original creation of life.

I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

That's the bottom line from the opening introduction to On the Origin of Species. I don't define Darwinism, Charles Darwin gets to do that. The book, like all Darwinian arguments, is nothing more then one long argument against creation.

So, better, I think, to keep the term "Darwinism" to its biological reference. It is confusing to extend it to all of science.

I think it should be used apart from science in general and evolution in particular but it's so universally equivocated with science and evolution it's nearly impossible.

Irrelevant to what?

Creation

No, God created the heavens and the earth, there's nothing illusory about it. God created life, all life including man, inside of 6 days. That's Biblical Christianity, not some kind of Hindu mysticism.

Your first and second statements contradict themselves. For the non-illusory evidence is clear that all life did not originate inside of six days. The second statement can only be factual if the evidence is an illusion.

No you have just taken me out of context, you asked me if I was a Hindu. Hindus believe the universe exists as a dream of Brahmin, I said there is nothing illusory about creation. God acted in time and space to create the universe (Gen 1:1), life (Gen 1:21) and Man (Gen 1:27). That was an ex nihilo creation and we know it is because of the use of 'bara' in the original.

You haven't made a single substantive point but that's not your fault. That's what happens when you try to defend Darwinism, your left with nothing but fallacious logic.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

No, Liberal Theology is based on the same naturalistic assumptions as Darwinism. That's the whole problem.

What makes an assumption "naturalistic"? What is the key characteristic of a "naturalistic assumption"?

Darwinism is the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to the beginning, in cosmology that's called the Big Bang. What I said was not obscure, you have done what Theistic Evolutionists do, you have conflated and confused the issue, you always do.

OK, this is a definition I can work with. But where you use the term "Darwinism" I would use the term "naturalism". Naturalism is the philosophic position that nature is the only thing that exists or ever has or ever will exist and all causes at all times are wholly natural causes. Naturalism rejects the concept of any being (such as God or gods or occult forces) which transcend nature.

So "Naturalism" would be a good term to fit into your definition: "the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to the beginning (Big Bang)".

Using "Naturalism" here would avoid the confusion generated when "Darwinism" has so many other meanings as well. Typically "Darwinism" simply means "theory of evolution by natural selection". i.e. Darwin's theory about the principle cause of biological evolution.

"Naturalism" is a much more comprehensive term covering all you are talking about and is more appropriate than "Darwinism".

I know what Darwinism is and it's an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going back to the Big Bang and so do you.

I would never call that "Darwinism" I would call it "Naturalism" or possibly "Materialism".

Darwin's theory contains no a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes even in biology, much less in all of existence.

No, I'm working from a real definition while you are trying to soft sell a fallacious one.

Myth

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.​

That is not one definition. That's five. I agree that definitions 3, 4 & 5 are not relevant to the bible. So that leaves us with definitions 1 & 2. These definitions do not include the concepts "invented" "imaginary" "fictitious" or "false". To distinguish these two definitions from the others I call stories of this sort "literary myth". Literary myth was a form of teaching in ancient times, including, but not limited to, the teaching of history.

Since we no longer use this form of teaching, we are more familiar in our time with "myths" that fall into definitions 3, 4, and 5. #5 is especially prevalent in politics.

Notice some of the elements in #1, 'without a determinable basis of fact'. This is not the case with the Hebrew Scriptures, in fact, they are the best living history from antiquity.

Well, no one is suggesting that all of the Hebrew scriptures are literary myths. The scriptures are a collection of many different genres.

Created 'bara', (Strong's 1254 בָּרָא bä·rä') to create, shape, form (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) of heaven and earth (Gen 1:1), life (Gen 1:21) and Man (used 3 times in Gen 1:27) Brown-Driver-Briggs​

CREATE: bara' (baw-raw) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as 'asah, "to make" (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yasar, "to form" (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, "to establish." (F. F. Bruce, and W. E. Vine. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)​

I see you are taking the expanded meaning from Vine's. Does any other commentator also support Vine's definition here?

No, your just running the conversation in circles, circular arguments are your fallacy of choice.

I am not making an argument. I am asking a question. What do you define as "naturalistic assumptions"?

Do you mean the same thing I have called "naturalism"? (see earlier discussion in this message)

I think you know exactly what is meant by 'fully formed', round and round it goes, where it stops no body knows...

I have seen the phrase often, and not only from you, but I have never seen it defined. I am puzzled by it.

No, you have misunderstood the word 'All' as in:

"all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition." (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Darwinism, like Theistic Evolution, is just one long argument against creation.

You confuse me again. I thought we were agreed that evolution occurs after creation. Something must exist before it can change. Darwin is describing change in the organic world. So how is this an argument against creation? Miracle of creation followed by orderly change via natural means i.e. God working providentially with nature not via miraculous interpositions.

Ahhh, I am sorry you find history and logic boring.
But do you find anything untrue in these boring statements?

I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

That's the bottom line from the opening introduction to On the Origin of Species. I don't define Darwinism, Charles Darwin gets to do that.

And what is your point of disagreement? Do you agree with the position Darwin formerly held---that each species has been independently created? Or do you hold that some species are descendants of species which existed in earlier times?

If you agree that species of the same genus are descendants of earlier extinct species, is it the proposed mechanism you disagree with?

The book, like all Darwinian arguments, is nothing more then one long argument against creation.

It certainly argues that not every species was independently created. But even most anti-Darwinians have conceded that point, yet they still call themselves "creationists". You have said you believe evolution is a real phenomenon. So, what is the difference between your position and Darwin's?

I think it should be used apart from science in general and evolution in particular but it's so universally equivocated with science and evolution it's nearly impossible.

It is natural to associate Darwin's name with the theory he proposed and the phenomenon his theory is associated with (change in species via natural selection). So clarity would be achieved by avoiding the use of the term "Darwinism" for an overall philosophy which is just as well described by a different term: "Naturalism".

I take it that you believe the theory of evolution is inseparable from Naturalism.
That would be a point where I disagree with you.

No you have just taken me out of context, you asked me if I was a Hindu. Hindus believe the universe exists as a dream of Brahmin, I said there is nothing illusory about creation. God acted in time and space to create the universe (Gen 1:1), life (Gen 1:21) and Man (Gen 1:27). That was an ex nihilo creation and we know it is because of the use of 'bara' in the original.

I know you are not actually Hindu, but as you say, one aspect of their belief is that the world as it appears to us in many separate forms is an illusion. When we see clearly the oneness of all Being, we are liberated from that illusion.

Christianity has a different focus. We do not see creation as an aspect of God. We believe the separate existence of God and creation is real, not illusory. God really made and gave being to that which is not God.


However, if you are asking people to believe that all life came into existence within 6 days you are asking people to believe an illusion, for the real, non-illusory world which we believe God really made provides real, solid evidence that this cannot be true. Or if true, life not only came into existence in six days, but came into existence with an illusory history of billions of years attached to it. One way or another, you are asking people to hold to an illusion rather than God's actual creation.

 

[mark kennedy]

What makes an assumption "naturalistic"? What is the key characteristic of a "naturalistic assumption"?

The key word here is 'All":

All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

OK, this is a definition I can work with. But where you use the term "Darwinism" I would use the term "naturalism". Naturalism is the philosophic position that nature is the only thing that exists or ever has or ever will exist and all causes at all times are wholly natural causes. Naturalism rejects the concept of any being (such as God or gods or occult forces) which transcend nature.

Natural law vs. miraculous interposition, the essential doctrine is creation. The way the hermeneutics work is text, context, transcendence, the way the science works is hypothesis, theory, law. The key word concept for the occult is 'secret' or mystery, your going to have to look at this in terms of transcendent principles.

So "Naturalism" would be a good term to fit into your definition: "the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes going all the way back to the beginning (Big Bang)".

Or to put it another way, the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. Did you ever notice God is never an acceptable cause of anything, He is not even allowed credit as the designer let alone creator.

Using "Naturalism" here would avoid the confusion generated when "Darwinism" has so many other meanings as well. Typically "Darwinism" simply means "theory of evolution by natural selection". i.e. Darwin's theory about the principle cause of biological evolution.

There is no avoiding Darwinism, consider carefully the role of Darwinism in the Modern Synthesis.

"Naturalism" is a much more comprehensive term covering all you are talking about and is more appropriate than "Darwinism".

That's how Darwin referred to himself, don't forget Herbert Spencer and Asa Grey. Does the expression 'mystery of mysteries' ring any bells?

I would never call that "Darwinism" I would call it "Naturalism" or possibly "Materialism".

Ok, now try Pragmatism and Humanism, does that fit in your concept of 'Naturalism?

Darwin's theory contains no a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes even in biology, much less in all of existence.

Untrue, Darwin's theory is predicated on it, 'natural law' is his transcendent principle. The substantive principle that transcends 'all change in the organic and inorganic world'

That is not one definition. That's five. I agree that definitions 3, 4 & 5 are not relevant to the bible. So that leaves us with definitions 1 & 2. These definitions do not include the concepts "invented" "imaginary" "fictitious" or "false". To distinguish these two definitions from the others I call stories of this sort "literary myth". Literary myth was a form of teaching in ancient times, including, but not limited to, the teaching of history.

This definition definitely does include "invented" "imaginary" "fictitious" or "false" in the definition itself. If you don't like that one then find another one but you will find it means unreal, not genuine or fake.

Since we no longer use this form of teaching, we are more familiar in our time with "myths" that fall into definitions 3, 4, and 5. #5 is especially prevalent in politics.

You have my definition, where is yours.

Well, no one is suggesting that all of the Hebrew scriptures are literary myths. The scriptures are a collection of many different genres.

Hebrew literature is a unique 'genre', none of the contemporary Semitic writing styles survived as a part of a living language, culture and people. We have the Hebrews with us to this day.

I see you are taking the expanded meaning from Vine's. Does any other commentator also support Vine's definition here?

Vine's isn't a commentary, it's a lexicon dictionary. If you want to compare it to other lexicon definitions you are going to have to discern the difference between a commentary and an exegetical tool.

I am not making an argument. I am asking a question. What do you define as "naturalistic assumptions"?

You have the definition, stop arguing in circles around it.

Do you mean the same thing I have called "naturalism"? (see earlier discussion in this message)

Adding the 'ism' is a grammatical construction based on the context of how it's used, you know that.

I have seen the phrase often, and not only from you, but I have never seen it defined. I am puzzled by it.

Round and around she goes...

You confuse me again. I thought we were agreed that evolution occurs after creation. Something must exist before it can change. Darwin is describing change in the organic world. So how is this an argument against creation? Miracle of creation followed by orderly change via natural means i.e. God working providentially with nature not via miraculous interpositions.

I realize that your confused but that's because your arguing in circles around the definition.

Ahhh, I am sorry you find history and logic boring.
But do you find anything untrue in these boring statements?

And the circular logic is caught in a broken record loop. Your getting trapped in your own fallacious logic, it's a downward spiral after that. Better pull up...

And what is your point of disagreement? Do you agree with the position Darwin formerly held---that each species has been independently created? Or do you hold that some species are descendants of species which existed in earlier times?

Taken in context, of course I can. I know the significance of gradualism as opposed to catastrophism, do you? You do know that Darwin was a gradualist right?

If you agree that species of the same genus are descendants of earlier extinct species, is it the proposed mechanism you disagree with?

Natural selection isn't a mechanism, it's an effect without a cause.

It certainly argues that not every species was independently created. But even most anti-Darwinians have conceded that point, yet they still call themselves "creationists". You have said you believe evolution is a real phenomenon. So, what is the difference between your position and Darwin's?

There is no such thing as an anti-darwinian, the only substantive difference between Darwinian gradualism and young earth creationism is the time line. Think about that a minute, it makes a lot of sense if you look clearly at it.

It is natural to associate Darwin's name with the theory he proposed and the phenomenon his theory is associated with (change in species via natural selection). So clarity would be achieved by avoiding the use of the term "Darwinism" for an overall philosophy which is just as well described by a different term: "Naturalism".

It is natural to associate Darwin with the Modern Synthesis.

I take it that you believe the theory of evolution is inseparable from Naturalism.

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, Darwin would have you assume that 'All' those changes are the result of natural law.

That would be a point where I disagree with you.

Imagine that...

I know you are not actually Hindu, but as you say, one aspect of their belief is that the world as it appears to us in many separate forms is an illusion. When we see clearly the oneness of all Being, we are liberated from that illusion.

Genesis 1 is not an illusion or a myth, that's my point. It's history.

Christianity has a different focus. We do not see creation as an aspect of God. We believe the separate existence of God and creation is real, not illusory. God really made and gave being to that which is not God.

That's right, theologians call that the aseity (utter independence) of God.

However, if you are asking people to believe that all life came into existence within 6 days you are asking people to believe an illusion, for the real, non-illusory world which we believe God really made provides real, solid evidence that this cannot be true. Or if true, life not only came into existence in six days, but came into existence with an illusory history of billions of years attached to it. One way or another, you are asking people to hold to an illusion rather than God's actual creation.

What people, it's just you and me talking. The six day creation isn't something I'm asking you to believe, you either believe it or you don't. In Genesis 1 day means day, there can be no serious semantical question about that. All I'm doing is telling you what is says, that is, how it reads in the original. Then you can take it or leave it.

The message is to whoever has ears to hear:

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:3-5)​

Do you see how similar that is to the Nicene Creed, do you know why?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

As I see it, the best antidote to atheism is a robust theistic understanding of evolution. It does cut out the need to debate atheists on scientific grounds, where one is sure to lose out to the facts and turns the debate into theology where it belongs.

I would disagree. There are plenty of atheists who love to mock Christian theology as well. The antidote is the Spirit.

With that said, my wish is that more serious consideration would be given to alternative theories in biology. ICR and the Discovery Institute have, in some ways, made that attempt. IMO they started from a flawed premise, which wouldn't bother me if I felt they were actually dedicated to giving consideration to alternative theories. But I'm not sure they are. I've debated whether I should pitch an idea to them, but between a lack of motivation on my part and demonstrating a lack of openness on their part, I haven't done it.

Additionally, I'm not convinced atheists are really open to considering alternatives either. IMO Dembski's "design inference" idea started as a legitimate scientific hypothesis, but it became so politicized (by both sides) that I haven't found where it was ever given much serious consideration. It's not that I would support the design inference idea, but I do look for a willingness for honest consideration and it seems to be a rarity.

 

[gluadys]

As I see it, the best antidote to atheism is a robust theistic understanding of evolution. It does cut out the need to debate atheists on scientific grounds, where one is sure to lose out to the facts and turns the debate into theology where it belongs.

I would disagree. There are plenty of atheists who love to mock Christian theology as well.

Of course, but that is to be expected. If they are going to mock Christian faith, let it be on the basis of the genuine articles of Christian faith and theology. Get the falsity of the war of faith and science out of the way. As long as Christians let them get away with claiming science as their own bailiwick, Christians are giving them an advantage in debate they are not entitled to.

The antidote is the Spirit.

For evangelism and conversion (as opposed to debate), absolutely.

With that said, my wish is that more serious consideration would be given to alternative theories in biology.

When the alternatives are serious and fruitful, they are. Geneticists and palaeontologists argued over punctuated equilibrium for a decade and eventually came to an agreement. Lynn Margulis had to argue for 20 years to convince microbiologists of the reality of symbiogenesis. More recently we had the discovery of remnants of organic material in a 70 million year old dinosaur fossil by Mary Schweitzer--something so astonishing that no one was willing to believe it without a great deal of testing.

It takes a lot of work to bring about a change in perspective. Neither Gould, nor Eldredge, nor Margulis, nor Schweitzer simply argued their case. Year after year they went back to scientific conferences with more research, more data. That apparently is the sort of on-the-ground work the Discovery Institute is not prepared to do. Some of their published papers have been given serious consideration and found to be seriously flawed on scientific grounds. A lot of what they present (despite Demski's background in math) is simply not defined in any measurable way. They simply have not produced any alternative that could be called a theory and definitely nothing capable of generating testable hypotheses that lead to any enhanced understanding of biological systems.

ICR and the Discovery Institute have, in some ways, made that attempt. IMO they started from a flawed premise, which wouldn't bother me if I felt they were actually dedicated to giving consideration to alternative theories. But I'm not sure they are.

I don't think they are either. They seem more interested in winning propaganda war than in doing serious scientific groundwork.

Additionally, I'm not convinced atheists are really open to considering alternatives either.

Well, for sure, atheists are going to resist any alternative that seems to include a deity. It was as an atheist that Fred Hoyle resisted the theory of the expanding universe, because it led to a finite beginning of the universe which might be "creation". But when the evidence went that way, it made no difference whether it was "religious" or not--scientists, even atheists, had to accept it. Ultimately, that is what must always count in science; which theory best accounts for/predicts the evidence we observe?

IMO Dembski's "design inference" idea started as a legitimate scientific hypothesis,

The real problem is that Dembski never developed it to the point that is could become a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Too much slippery, unquantifiable terminology.

 

[Resha Caner]

As long as Christians let them get away with claiming science as their own bailiwick, Christians are giving them an advantage in debate they are not entitled to.

Neither should Christians assent to science just so they can play inside the bailiwick. Any time I disagree about a scientific issue, I am suddenly labeled as anti-science.

When the alternatives are serious and fruitful, they are.

It's not that simple, as you note yourself. You have to give your life to promoting an idea, and then you might - just might - succeed. I reached that decision point myself in mechanics, and took the lazy (or maybe cowardly) path of letting my idea drop.

The real problem is that Dembski never developed it to the point that is could become a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Too much slippery, unquantifiable terminology.

I don't think that's fair. I don't know the man personally, but I bet he tried very hard to make it work. Granted, he seems open to the charge that he also took the wrong road - toward winning that propaganda war you spoke of - but I bet not until he hit the "oh crap" moment.

I know that moment well. It's the moment when you realize the weakness of your argument, and you're not quite sure how to proceed, because it becomes a matter of paradigms rather than science. If you've studied the history of science, you should realize that many of the big names go through that moment. Galileo did. Newton did. Einstein did. It's not that the old paradigm is right, but rather that the assumptions of the old paradigm are taken as self-evident by everyone but you.

You're right that Dembski's "oh crap" was some unquantifiable terminology. I reached that conclusion as well. But it's not as if there aren't other sciences with the same problem. Qualification is used frequently. It's just that given the idea was bound to be received with hostility, it became a fatal weakness.

Still, it's a very cool idea.

Anyway, I think biology has some potential alternatives that haven't come fully to light yet - alternatives that have nothing to do with invoking a deity. Who knows. Maybe they will at some point. I'm just not holding my breath.

 

[gluadys]

Neither should Christians assent to science just so they can play inside the bailiwick.

Right. We need to be as sure as we can be of the science--given that nothing in science is absolutely certain. But much of it is somewhere between 99.99% and 100% certain. There is no need to go along with science just because it is popular, but it is equally ridiculous to reject well-based science when one has no logical reason not to.

Any time I disagree about a scientific issue, I am suddenly labeled as anti-science.

You get caught in the reaction to those who are.

It's not that simple, as you note yourself. You have to give your life to promoting an idea, and then you might - just might - succeed. I reached that decision point myself in mechanics, and took the lazy (or maybe cowardly) path of letting my idea drop.

Sometimes the world just is not ready for you.

I don't think that's fair. I don't know the man personally, but I bet he tried very hard to make it work. Granted, he seems open to the charge that he also took the wrong road - toward winning that propaganda war you spoke of - but I bet not until he hit the "oh crap" moment.

That may be. I don't know him personally either. But I do know that a mathematician is not a biologist and a lot of crap mathematics has been badly applied to evolutionary biology. And it is less a criticism of him personally than of the institutional side of ID. Dembski may have hit a brick wall and if he was the only person promoting the concept, he could quietly drop it until he had a better handle on it. But even if he were willing to do so, his colleagues continue the propaganda war with or without him.

I know that moment well. It's the moment when you realize the weakness of your argument, and you're not quite sure how to proceed, because it becomes a matter of paradigms rather than science. If you've studied the history of science, you should realize that many of the big names go through that moment. Galileo did. Newton did. Einstein did. It's not that the old paradigm is right, but rather that the assumptions of the old paradigm are taken as self-evident by everyone but you.

I would agree that at this point, the only thing that would significantly affect the theory of evolution is a paradigm shift that gives us a whole new perspective on it. Pragmatically, however, day-to-day scientific work (and teaching) has to continue with the current paradigm until that happens.

You're right that Dembski's "oh crap" was some unquantifiable terminology. I reached that conclusion as well. But it's not as if there aren't other sciences with the same problem. Qualification is used frequently. It's just that given the idea was bound to be received with hostility, it became a fatal weakness.

Still, it's a very cool idea.

I don't think it is a cool idea. I have as many problems with it theologically as I do scientifically. I find TE a better theological alternative; it allows for the Creator to be an intelligent designer without the restrictions ID places on its Designer.

Anyway, I think biology has some potential alternatives that haven't come fully to light yet - alternatives that have nothing to do with invoking a deity. Who knows. Maybe they will at some point. I'm just not holding my breath.

Me neither. What I do know is that the old paradigms based on a "scientific" reading of scripture are not part of any future paradigm.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sometimes the world just is not ready for you.

You are the master of the polite reply. Are you ready for me?

I don't think it is a cool idea. I have as many problems with it theologically as I do scientifically. I find TE a better theological alternative; it allows for the Creator to be an intelligent designer without the restrictions ID places on its Designer.

Tsk, tsk. In science isn't one supposed to evaluate an idea based on its physical implications, not the theological ones? Are you saying you would reject a scientific idea due to theology?

This is one case where I think it's a cool idea even though, in the end, I have to reject it as unworkable.

So what restrictions do you think it places on God?

Me neither. What I do know is that the old paradigms based on a "scientific" reading of scripture are not part of any future paradigm.

As I said, the ideas I was thinking of don't invoke a deity. Nor are they based on scripture - though I don't think they contradict it.

Even though the alternatives I refer to don't require it, what is interesting in this whole discussion is that what is being rejected is the idea of an intelligent creative agent. Yet at the same time, the social sciences are all about such a thing.

 

[gluadys]

You are the master of the polite reply. Are you ready for me?

We'll see.

Tsk, tsk. In science isn't one supposed to evaluate an idea based on its physical implications, not the theological ones? Are you saying you would reject a scientific idea due to theology?

But I was talking about theology, not science. If ID had a sound scientific basis I would have to deal with that. And I would say in that case that it implies that Christian theology does not square with reality, so maybe I should rethink my theology.

Some people want Christians to embrace ID even though it doesn't have a sound scientific basis, because it appears to be "friendly" to theism. But the sort of theism it is friendly to is not, IMHO, Christian theism. To use an old cliché, the ID Designer/God is too small.

So what restrictions do you think it places on God?

Basically, it disallows God access to creation other than through what Darwin called "miraculous interposition". The so-called "design filter" discriminates between chance, law and design. One cannot infer a designer until one has ruled out chance and law.

But in Christian theology, God is the God of both chance and the orderliness of nature as well as any design. Nor is there any rationality in saying that design excludes a deliberate use of chance and/or law on the part of a designer.

By restricting "evidence" of design so narrowly, ID falls into that category of theology we call "god-of-the-gaps". Basically it is an appeal to infer design in anything for which we have no current scientific explanation. God is to be discerned only in the murky depths of our ignorance.

But scripture tells us to look at nature as revealing God and God's glory. There are dozens of stories in scripture where "chance" events turn out to have been part of God's plan. And there are plenty of passages where the regular processes of nature like the coming and going of seasons, the patterns of rainfall, the times of planting and harvest, the development of embryos, etc. are attributed to God. Yet the design filter forbids us to infer a Designer in these things precisely because they are regular "lawful" natural processes, many of which we understand to the nth degree.

If we followed scripture and mainstream Christian theology in allowing all of creation, and perhaps especially, those aspects of creation that are orderly ('cosmos' derives from a Greek word for "order" "harmony" "beauty") to be accepted as revelation of God's divinity, majesty and glory, then intelligent design theology could include a full acceptance of evolution.

But by delimiting the inference of design to that which is neither mere chance, nor the regular processes of nature, ID obligates itself to see evolution as godless. And basically, given the philosophy it is based on, I think that is deliberate. ID is just a fresh coat of paint on the idea that God is to be seen only in miraculous works and never in the day-to-day occurrences of nature. IMO, if you cannot see the hand of God in the process of salt dissolving in water, it doesn't matter how many miracles you point to, your God is still too small. And definitely much smaller than the God revealed in the bible.

As I said, the ideas I was thinking of don't invoke a deity. Nor are they based on scripture - though I don't think they contradict it.

Even though the alternatives I refer to don't require it, what is interesting in this whole discussion is that what is being rejected is the idea of an intelligent creative agent. Yet at the same time, the social sciences are all about such a thing.

I think the notion that the idea of an intelligent designer is being rejected is so much false propaganda. There are too many scientists who are also theists for it to be an actual campaign on the part of science.

I think this so-called "rejection" is a bogey-man invented by people who want to maintain fear of evolution among believers.

I think too that it is fed by the uncertainty of people who want "signs" that God is real. In our culture, the tendency is to grant science the stamp of authority in the realm of fact. We want the assurance that something is scientifically valid, based on evidence. Why not ask the same about God?

Yet if God is God, God is inherently beyond the capacity of science to validate. God necessarily transcends any means by which a scientist might seek evidence of God's existence. If we would have assurance of God, we must follow the pathway of faith, not of science.

 

[Resha Caner]

Read carefully. I think you're allowing your paradigm of creationism to misinterpret what I'm saying.

But I was talking about theology, not science. If ID had a sound scientific basis I would have to deal with that. And I would say in that case that it implies that Christian theology does not square with reality, so maybe I should rethink my theology.

Note that I said "hypothesis" and "design inference" (shall we call this DI?). I think you're referring to the popular debates on ID. The question here is: Can the design of an intelligent agent be detected? Or, in the form of a hypothesis:

DI Hypothesis = The design of an intelligent agent can be detected.

To say science cannot address this question is to say science cannot deal with the concepts of "design" and "intelligence". Are you saying that? I'm not. I reject DI for completely different reasons than you.

Basically, it disallows God access to creation other than through what Darwin called "miraculous interposition". The so-called "design filter" discriminates between chance, law and design. One cannot infer a designer until one has ruled out chance and law.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by the underlined phrase. By "miraculous interposition" do you mean the direct intervention of God we spoke of earlier (recall the bicycle analogy)?

If so, then you are conflating DI with ID ... and possibly even misrepresenting ID depending on what you mean by "access to creation". As such, I must ask you the following questions:
1) Do you believe God can directly intervene to create?
2) Do you believe God did directly create?
3) If so, how would you discern the difference?

But in Christian theology, God is the God of both chance and the orderliness of nature as well as any design. Nor is there any rationality in saying that design excludes a deliberate use of chance and/or law on the part of a designer.

Hmm. I used to consider the TE explanation of chance a game of moving the goal posts until we discussed it. After that I gave TE credit for a legitimate position on chance (even if I disagreed with it). However, this statement is about to make me go back the other way.

I don't know what "theology" you refer to, but you'll need to give me Biblical support for the statement that "God is the God of both chance and the orderliness of nature". (1 Cor 14:33)

Further, the way you're incorporating chance into design seems to redfine the word into its opposite for your convenience.

Design | Define Design at Dictionary.com
design: to intend for a definite purpose

Definite Synonyms, Definite Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
antonym of "definite": uncertain

Uncertain Synonyms, Uncertain Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
synonym of "uncertain": chancy

If I need to diagram the logical contradiction in more detail for you, I can do that.

I think the notion that the idea of an intelligent designer is being rejected is so much false propaganda. There are too many scientists who are also theists for it to be an actual campaign on the part of science.

Again, your paradigm is getting in the way. I don't know that any scientist (atheist or theist) rejects the idea (the possibility) of an intelligent designer. That's not what I was saying. What they reject is that God is necessary for explaining creation. Given that abiogenesis is unsettled, and that the social sciences are all about dealing with intelligent agents, I think it reveals a clear bias to never consider intelligent agency.

Now, I think there is a simple argument to show that if am intelligently creative agent exists, it is unknowable to science. But, the fact that such an argument is never invoked - even further that an atheist just recently posted the argument here at CF as if it were a new idea - shows to me that atheists are rejecting the idea on non-scientific grounds ... and too many Christians are buying into their argument.

But that was really only a digressive comment on my part. I really think it would be worthwhile to finish our other conversation.

 

[Papias]

Caner wrote:

I reject DI for completely different reasons than you.

Your discussion brought this to mind, which I'm only mention in case the two of you find it interesting for your discussion, - it's the first theological problem which comes to my mind with DI/ID.

That problem for me has been the many cases in the creation of clearly bad design. There are many examples - such as the vagus nerve in the giraffe (which travels many extra feet with no reason), the need for whales to breathe air (why not give them gills?), the need for sea turtles to lay eggs on land, and so on through dozens of similar examples. These are present on a biochemical and organ level too (like our many vestigial muscles between fixed bones, etc). All of them are easily explained if God used evolution as a method to create - but if the DI/ID hypothesis casts God as a designer of these details, then it raises serious theological problems.

I'm not sure if that feeds into your discussion. If not, ignore it.

Blessings-

Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure if that feeds into your discussion. If not, ignore it.

I was thinking of something different.

 

[gluadys]

Read carefully. I think you're allowing your paradigm of creationism to misinterpret what I'm saying.

If you can tell me of a specific way in which my paradigm of creationism differs from its actual propositions, I am willing to consider it.

Note that I said "hypothesis" and "design inference" (shall we call this DI?). I think you're referring to the popular debates on ID. The question here is: Can the design of an intelligent agent be detected? Or, in the form of a hypothesis:

DI Hypothesis = The design of an intelligent agent can be detected.

To say science cannot address this question is to say science cannot deal with the concepts of "design" and "intelligence". Are you saying that?

Not at all. Science does quite well at detecting design generated by humans and by some animals. There are some real test cases in archeology, where it is sometimes not clear if the form of an weathered object is due solely to the weathering or to a design that has been worn down. But most of the time, it is clear enough when an object is an artifact of design rather than a natural phenomenon. One doesn't even necessarily need to know the function of the artifact in question. I remember seeing an exhibit of some of the earliest artifacts from Ukraine and among them were dozens of artifacts in various sizes which looked something like a pair of binoculars without lenses. Not containers since they were open at both ends. No one had any idea of what they were made for, but it was very clear that they were made by human hands.


Similarly scientists can recognize things built by animals such as nests, webs, dams, etc.

But can one apply the means of identifying artifacts to the alleged design of natural things by a creative agent? Artifacts are known by their difference from nature. And, in most cases, by the evidence that they were produced (marks of tools on the artifact or, in the case of beavers, teeth)

How is design to be detected in nature in the absence of such evidence?

I'm not. I reject DI for completely different reasons than you.

As you see I am not rejecting your hypothesis. Only saying it is not applicable in the case of the Creator of the natural world.

What are your reasons?

First, I'm not sure what you mean by the underlined phrase. By "miraculous interposition" do you mean the direct intervention of God we spoke of earlier (recall the bicycle analogy)?

If so, then you are conflating DI with ID ...

By DI, I was referring to the Discovery Institute, not Design Inference. Since the Discovery Institute is pretty much the only producer of ID thought, it is hardly a conflation.

and possibly even misrepresenting ID depending on what you mean by "access to creation". As such, I must ask you the following questions:
1) Do you believe God can directly intervene to create?
2) Do you believe God did directly create?
3) If so, how would you discern the difference?

1) Yes
2) Not sure. But if he did, I think it would be only at the quantum level, or in biology at the molecular level.
3) I don't think it is possible to discern the difference. In biology, God could directly cause all mutations, some mutations or no mutations. Even in the case where God directly caused some mutations and let others occur by chance, no scientific tool could tell one from another.

Hmm. I used to consider the TE explanation of chance a game of moving the goal posts until we discussed it. After that I gave TE credit for a legitimate position on chance (even if I disagreed with it). However, this statement is about to make me go back the other way.

I don't know why it should. Take two examples:

1. An artist chooses to create a painting by randomly throwing paint at the canvas. The finished work is his design, but he incorporated chance into its production.

2. A Rube Goldberg type of machine is a needlessly complicated mechanical process for accomplishing a simple task. Every step of it depends for its successful function on a physical law of nature.

These are extreme examples of design incorporating chance on the one hand and law on the other. Both require a deliberate choice of design technique by an intelligent agent. Hence they are examples of intelligent design.

I don't know what "theology" you refer to, but you'll need to give me Biblical support for the statement that "God is the God of both chance and the orderliness of nature". (1 Cor 14:33)

On chance: Proverbs 16:33
One can also consider such "chance" events as a caravan passing by as Joseph's brothers were debating what to do with him. By and large the biblical view is that what seems to be chance in our view is part of some deliberate plan on God's part.

On law: Genesis 8:22 along with Psalm 139:15 and Luke 12:27 and many others, including the whole first chapter of Genesis.

Further, the way you're incorporating chance into design seems to redfine the word into its opposite for your convenience.

From an engineering perspective, I guess that's true. But from the perspective of deciding how to bring something into existence (create it), an intelligent agent can surely make a decision to allow some part of a design to be randomly generated and/or to use some existing natural process as a means of producing some new, more complex pattern.

I think for example of the lovely designs created in a kaleidoscope. The artefact as a whole is clearly designed for the purpose of random generation of coloured designs.

Again, your paradigm is getting in the way. I don't know that any scientist (atheist or theist) rejects the idea (the possibility) of an intelligent designer. That's not what I was saying. What they reject is that God is necessary for explaining creation.

I am not sure that I understand that this is a problem, and certainly not a modern problem. Even in ancient times, philosophers understood that either the world was eternal or was brought into existence by some other cause. Some held that matter and spirit were co-eternal. Some held the world was eternal and the gods born of the world--making the gods younger than the world, for they had a beginning and the world did not. Some held that spirit alone is eternal and the material world emanates from it and will eventually return to it. And some held that God is eternal and made the world.

Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that on the basis of reason alone, it was impossible to say whether the world was eternal of itself or was created, but the Church taught creation.

In our time, the concept of the multiverse is another form of the view that the world of matter/energy is eternal and needs no Creator.

IOW, Creation is and always has been doctrine, not a logical conclusion from premises and certainly not a scientific conclusion. Like anything else in Christian theology, like Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Eternal Life, it is something we believe and science is irrelevant to that affirmation of faith.

By the same token, I don't think there is anything science can say which contradicts the concept of creation. God only becomes unnecessary to creation if one accepts the view that God is unnecessary to nature. All anyone means when they say God is unnecessary to creation is that, in their view, we can fully explain the existence of the universe and everything in it on the basis of the laws of physics. The unstated premise here is that God is unnecessary to physics. But that is the issue isn't it? That's where science breaks down and we resort to faith.

It seems to me that Christians who have a problem with this situation suffer from a need to see miraculous explanations to bolster their faith. I mean, that is what miracles are for isn't it? To be signs from God. But God gives signs as God sees fit.

Given that abiogenesis is unsettled, and that the social sciences are all about dealing with intelligent agents, I think it reveals a clear bias to never consider intelligent agency.

No, clearly science doesn't actually rule out intelligent agency or it would rule out recognition of human agency too. What it rules out is consideration of any agency without evidence that there is an agent. Basic Occam's razor: don't multiply entities without necessity. IOW, don't consider miracles or any occult action unless you have to.

Now, I think there is a simple argument to show that if am intelligently creative agent exists, it is unknowable to science. But, the fact that such an argument is never invoked - even further that an atheist just recently posted the argument here at CF as if it were a new idea - shows to me that atheists are rejecting the idea on non-scientific grounds ... and too many Christians are buying into their argument.

Oh, I agree there, especially on the last clause. I have been saying that for years.

But that was really only a digressive comment on my part. I really think it would be worthwhile to finish our other conversation.

You will have to refresh my memory. I have lost track of it.

 

[gluadys]

Caner wrote:


Your discussion brought this to mind, which I'm only mention in case the two of you find it interesting for your discussion, - it's the first theological problem which comes to my mind with DI/ID.

That problem for me has been the many cases in the creation of clearly bad design. There are many examples - such as the vagus nerve in the giraffe (which travels many extra feet with no reason), the need for whales to breathe air (why not give them gills?), the need for sea turtles to lay eggs on land, and so on through dozens of similar examples. These are present on a biochemical and organ level too (like our many vestigial muscles between fixed bones, etc). All of them are easily explained if God used evolution as a method to create - but if the DI/ID hypothesis casts God as a designer of these details, then it raises serious theological problems.

I'm not sure if that feeds into your discussion. If not, ignore it.

Blessings-

Papias

ID's answer to this is the Edsel. An atrociously bad design, but still a design emanating from an intelligent agent. So still an example of ID. Apparently ID means "Design by an Intelligent Agent" but not necessarily "Intelligently Designed"