Hi @colewd, this probably comes from the relative proportions of harmful vs. beneficial mutations that one finds in the literature. I don’t think this expectation is wrong.
Not I. 
What does that have to do with Darwin Devolves?
I didn’t attend in large part because I didn’t believe the conversation would focus on Mike Behe’s latest book. When I watch the video will I be pleasantly surprised? Let’s hope so.
Will Destructive Neutral Evolution be the next ID book?
Its not an ad hominem, it’s just a misguided objection. 
What secret do you think Behe is keeping?
I have the one solution for building trust:
Quit arguing about whether ID can be scientifically demonstrated!
Point out that this is a footnote issue amongst Christians who already accept God uses creation AND evolution!
Would another, similar but different, view be God uses evolution AS creation?
1 Like
It seems like a pedantic matter. But because of our current situation and how things have played out historically, there are big consequences to choosing one side or the other. We’re basically making a choice between trusting that scientists are just doing their job, or scientists are stubbornly materialistic and atheistic and conspiring to keep Christianity out of the public sphere.
I think you know the answer. Your answer is what BioLogos fixated on for so many years.
And it builds no trust with Creationists because - - if we reject God’s ability to make just 2 people by special creation, how can we be trusted to accept God’s creation of Jesus and his resurrection?
No… @dga471, I don’t agree. I don’t think @swamidass agrees.
I think he agrees with me there is a middle ground where we put the divisive and argumentative material down… to be discussed much later, if ever.
There is no resolving the ID dispute as far as I can see.
But there is resolving Genealogical Adam.
I’m saying shouldn’t it be a both/and, not an either/or? Your formulation “God uses creation AND evolution” seems to create a dichotomy say that evolution can’t be part of the creation process. The evolution part is when God’s not doing anything and the creation part is when he is. Maybe that wasn’t your intention, I just read it that way.
I think a lot of EC/TE would like to see those put back together to say that God create(s,d) through an evolutionary process. I don’t think that means there can’t be additional creative events, but I think many would say that, in terms of living things, that those events are not detectable by science that we can see.
1 Like
How odd.
If I say and… you interpret it to mean either/or.
So if I say “or”, then you think it makes more sense?
And why would you say this: “The evolution part is when God is not doing anything and the creation part is when he is.”
Again … a BioLogos position that brings no traction towards reality … ironic, ain’t it?
Whether it’s Evolution or special creation, God is doing everything either way.
God sits down to breakfast, and he eats with his left and his right. He doesn’t allow his right hand to feed him.
I get that, but the way you put the and in there made it look like you were making a distinction between two separate things, but that God could/did use both. I’m saying that many EC/TE would probably say that they are one-in-the same, not distinct things. At least that is my impression. I’m sure there are a few that take the more deist stance like Behe’s “Pool Shot” but I think most would be fine with the idea that God created all living things through the process of evolution, which may or may not include scientifically invisible “tweaks”.
1 Like
The average Creationist would not adopt this sentence.
This is a really bad analogy. Your right hand is a part of you, and it moves when your brain tells it to move, and not when it doesn’t. If evolution is analogous to God’s hand, that’s active causation, every little bit pushed into place. And that’s quite different from anything we could call a natural process. If you have another analogy that fits what you’re trying to say here, bring it out. I don’t think there is one, because the concept you’re pushing is incoherent.
1 Like
I think there is more similarities between the field of Economics and the field of Theology than one would rightfully expect… because I’m always astounded at how many DIFFERENT scenarios appear when you bring in 50 people that you would expect to develop just 2 or 3 different “camps”!
You write: “… made it look like you were making a distinction between two separate things…”
which you then follow with “… but that God could/did use both”.
Now, Jordan, how do you mean your follow-up? If God could/did use both … that WOULD be two different things, right?
So I’m going to assume that you are rather devoted to the idea that it is really just ONE thing, but with two different labels.
And this is where I would part company from your personal “camp”.
I wrote with the intention of delineating two different things… because I see it as different things. Ironically, Behe may not!
Behe describes Evolution as “intelligently designed” (or maybe we could even say ‘programmed’) before the actual start of Creation. He doesn’t seem to allow for any other modality, and yet all his buddies, the Creationists, imagine they see him IMPLYING that God is “poofing” here and there, and all over the place… and yet we don’t actually catch him saying anything like this.
But the conflict comes when he implies that when God is designing, everything is great with Evolution, and when God is not designing, Evolution tends to become DEVOLUTION.
But isn’t this a slice of nutz? If God’s Divine Billiards Ball Shot is set up from before the beginning of Creation, which part of his design is supposed to be when God isnt’ designing? Isn’t this a 100% design OR NADA scenario?
MY DISTINCTION:
Compare this to my scenario: God lays down his expectations for the workings of natural law (that’s him DOING something).
And in between, now and then, God performs a “pooooof” (smoke slowly vanishing). And that’s God DOING something as well.
There is NO time when God is not doing (except when you allow for Free Will).
@Jordan, what is your reaction to this?
I have seen this asserted several times but never supported.
2 Likes
The argument is evidence of design…hard stop. You are going beyond Behe’s argument.
His second argument here is evidence of a limit to the Darwinian mechanism…hard stop.
Both are based on empirical observations.
Yeah, I should have maybe been more careful in phrasing that. I think a better way to say it might be that you seem to be talking about as two separate things (creation and evolution) that sound like mutually exclusive things, i.e. when you have one you don’t have the other. Something came about via either creation or evolution. God “uses” both, but the cause of any singular event is one or the other.
I’m suggesting that many EC/TE would say that, in terms of biology, “creation” and “evolution” are (nearly) indistinguishable and synonymous. That’s what I unclearly called a both/and. I think there would be debate on the “nearly” part, so I put it in parentheses.
I’m not devoted to any particular view and I’m not claiming any camp.
What I do see, from my perspective, is that Evolutionary Creation (taking the broadest and generally most appealing name) is a much wider tent (TE, Biologos, Peaceful Science, even much of ID) than some would like and much of these discussions are internal debates about the details, not actually separate camps. I think the debate is a good one, one I’m very interested in, but I don’t want to let that destroy the vast amount of common ground we have.
I think your statement would cover a whole lot of people. I think the “internal” debates are really only around:
- How often does God perform a “poof”? (do we have better language for that other than “supernatural”?)
- If the “poofs” are detectable by science.
Those aren’t insignificant, but they are certainly don’t seem big enough that we can’t all be in the same “tent”.
And they call economics “the dismal science”. So what does that say about theology?
2 Likes
I will agree to your sentence if you answer this question, without any equivocation or circling dances of death…
If God sets up this Divinely Massive and Divinely Intelligent Billiards Ball Shot … that takes us from the moment of creation … through billions of years… to the time that Humans appear (whenever you think that might be)…
Then which part of the Billiards Shot is not designed by God?