7 posts were split to a new topic: What Do You Mean by “Affirm”
Yeah, but then the coin isn’t fair, at least for the duration when God is imposing his will on what the coin does. Either that, or God has to sort of set up the dominoes so that’s how the coin still behaves because the conditions were right for it, which then requires a sort of determinism.
The point is when some scientist describes the evolutionary process as random, or unguided, not working towards a specific goal, I think this is what trips many believers over as they see humanity as a very deliberate goal God has. But if the process of evolution is truly goalless, and involves accidental changes that haven’t been planned or somehow set up to happen when and if they do, this appears to contradict that view.
But I don’t think it has to. There is not a necessary logical contradiction there. I see a space where the two views can be reconciled. In effect God can play dice, but ensure he wins simply by the number of throws he performs. With a big enough universe with enough planets with life on them, that random goalless process can still be effectively guaranteed to produce the lifeform God wants.
Yes that too seems odd.
I’m finding these two comments hard to square.
I guess you (and perhaps others) are assuming a definition of OEC that rules out the acceptance of common ancestry. I know that must seem like something obvious, and perhaps it is, but then the first comment is kinda weird.
3 Likes
Well, let’s put it this way.
The GAE is scrambling categories for a lot of people, including them. What we can emperically observe is that:
-
Rejecting evolution/common descent (humans with great apes) is not a non-negotiable for them, as long as they can affirm their actual non-negotiables.
-
They also have their own model that they want to explore alongside making space for common descent. There does not seem to be much harm in this. In fact, it could be interesting.
-
Their position is “evolving.” It has changed before, and GAE really blurs categories in a way that is still working through their community. The key thing is that it separates entirely evolution from what they say is what they really care about. With that separation of concerns clarified, they have to figure out to what extent they need to oppose it at all.
Do they really have their own model? Or do they just have a few notions? And it seems that their notions are not just about primates but about all life. Will they really abandon their ideas about all the rest of earth history if you just solve their problems with Homo sapiens?
Very curious about this. How has it changed?
It has been years since I’ve read the stuff at RTB; when I knew their stuff, it was disgracefully bad, riddled with both errors and open falsehoods. But I’m truly encouraged by this news that Rana is rethinking his positions and approaches.
I could be wrong but I think that what RTB has to lose by telling the truth about evolution is nothing less than their entire apologetic mission wrt evolution. Rana is right that anyone can assert “design as opposed to shared descent,” about any omnipotent deity of any kind. But once someone admits that common descent is both consistent with the evidence and (more importantly IMO) a robust explanation for that evidence, then that person loses access to an apologetic argument based on explanation. (These are pitiful gods of the gaps, to be sure, but they work on lots of people.) Their next step must be to attempt to advance their design argument in parallel with common descent, and it is hard to picture RTB doing that. I’d love to see it happen, though.
4 Likes
Unless there have been dramatic changes in the last several years, this is really not true. Their “model” circa 2010 wasn’t a scientific model at all, and it was embarrassingly bad as a list of assertions and post hoc rationalizations. There was clear potential for harm, since they were prolific writers of falsehood back then.
Perhaps the “model” they want to “explore” in parallel is something about “design.” I agree there is no inherent harm in that, and in fact I’m the wacko atheist who is always trying to get people to be more interested in design. But if they think that “design” is incompatible with common descent, then they’ll do harm, by helping confused people retreat into falsehood and conspiracy.
1 Like
Well @sfmatheson I think there have been dramatic changes. It is a process, and I can’t predict where it will all go. But I do know that this book’s last chapter is a very significant step along the journey, and our dialogue with them does have some influence on where things will eventually land.
1 Like
What does this mean? It would seem to contradict claims made about Fuz Rana’s views in this thread:
1 Like
Yes, my follow up questions will clarify this comment. We will be getting the transcript up in a couple days @John_Harshman .
I am genuinely happy to learn this. It could make an important difference IMO. You deserve huge credit for earning their trust and helping them reform.
3 Likes
I’m dubious. The two statements are incompatible, and clarifying would seem to demand the abandonment of one of them. If you can call that clarifying.
Again, what are the dramatic changes?
They are, but @Michelle offered some thoughts that were both generous (toward RTB) and reasonable:
To me, this is the most important thing written in thread wrt to how Rana is thinking about evolution, especially if (as seems the case) the evolutionary process is ongoing.
2 Likes
The statement was taken directly from his brand new book. Is that book obsolete already?
1 Like
That’s what I see as well. Human psychology may lead some people to want to see direct intervention instead of undetectable providence. This same worldview seems to be a part of the oft discussed Problem of Evil, so it isn’t limited to just evolution. At the same time, evolution is no less random and chaotic than Brownian motion and radioactive decay.
1 Like
Well, it turns out that there isn’t very much there there. I gain no clear idea of what the RTB model might be or how it might be changing. I gain no clear idea of why Fuz Rana rejects evolution, except for this:
To me this says that his reasoning isn’t scientific at all; it’s entirely apologetic. Judge a hypothesis by how much it helps in proselytizing. It should be needless to say that this sort of reasoning should be anathema to any scientist.
And there’s this:
And yet I find that most of the talk was spent papering over and sliding past deep, likely irreconcilable differences regarding science.
All in all, disappointing.
3 Likes
Give it time. They are a moving target.
Still sliding past fundamental disagreements?