# Harmonizing Evolution and Guidance at BioLogos
**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377
**Category:** Conversation
**Tags:** Theology, Science
**Created:** [August 9, 2020, 3:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377 "2020-08-09T15:31:06Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 3:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/1 "2020-08-09T15:31:06Z")
Continuing the discussion from [American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/70):
This exchange, I feel, is salient. It is worth unpacking what works about @dga471’s response for @Eddie more precisely, as this could help clarify what is at stake and how better dialogue can proceed.
> **The Lead Up**
>
> > [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/70):
> >
> > _American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution…_
> >
> > I would call 48% a plurality rather than a majority, but no fundamental objection.
> >
> > _Is this true for BioLogos?_
> >
> > No, because every time the word “guided” has been floated there, there has been massive evasion, from back in the days of Falk and Venema through to the days of Stump and Kramer. And this is true for any equivalent expression – any expression that implies that God is “hands-on” in evolution in a very concrete sense–as opposed to some vague involvement of God in evolution which they carefully avoid specifying–is rejected, avoided, or side-stepped. In contrast, the 48% of Americans you are talking about, who say that God “guides” evolution, understand English words employed in surveys in everyday, not-tricky ways, and assume the survey is talking about something like “intervention” (even if very subtle, at an invisible, submicroscopic level), or some kind of front-loaded setup (a perfect pool shot, as we discussed before). The deliberate vagueness concerning whether God “guided” anything is a modern TE/EC thing. And I don’t think it’s accidental that the vagueness started to become especially pronounced at almost exactly the same time as American TE/ECs declared war on ID.
> >
> > Typical “answers” to the straightforward question, “Does God guide evolution?” include:
> >
> > 1. "Define ‘guide’ ".
> > 2. God has ordained a process of evolution.
> > 3. Evolution is God’s way of creating.
> >
> > Note that all of these, in various ways, avoid answering the question.
> >
> > The first, though seemingly reasonable, is disingenuous, because even when the questioner goes on to define “guide”, the answerer then makes difficulty about that definition, and the questioner then tries to reformulate, and the answerer makes difficulty about _that_ definition, etc., and the question is not answered. Finally, in frustration, the questioner says, “Fine. YOU pick a word which describes God’s relationship to the process, since you don’t like any of mine.” At that point, the answerer either breaks off discussion or gives an answer which does not face the question asked. One might call this “the Venema shuffle” after Dennis Venema, who gave the classic performance of it, in answer to the question of “Crude”, many years ago.
> >
> > The second response merely says that God gives the orders; it doesn’t say whether or not God had any personal role in carrying them out. So it doesn’t answer the question.
> >
> > The third has the same problem.
> >
> > BioLogos is now even _less_ inclined to pursue theoretical discussions than it used to be, so any attempt to pose the question there on the Forum would meet with complete lack of interest. The attempt to harmonize Bios and Logos at the level of theory has been pretty much abandoned.
>
> > [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/73):
> >
> > > [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/70):
> > >
> > > Typical “answers” to the straightforward question, “Does God guide evolution?” include:
> > >
> > > > 1. "Define ‘guide’ ".
> > > > 2. God has ordained a process of evolution.
> > > > 3. Evolution is God’s way of creating.
> > > >
> > > > Note that all of these, in various ways, avoid answering the question.
> >
> > @Eddie, I get that this might be your experience with BioLogos but I just want to maybe also throw out there that with a lot of people these may also legitimately be honest answers to the question and not a purposeful avoiding.
> >
> > My experience with most TE/EC folks (not the ones that run organizations) is that they honestly don’t know how God used evolution and don’t know if “guide” is the right word to explain it or not. They believe God is real and has interacted with the world _and_ that evolutionary science is an accurate understanding of how nature works. Beyond that though, it’s maybe not clear to these people, either from Scripture or from science, how God’s interaction with natural history really works. Is it all just providential and “hidden” from us? Is it an initial start to life, now to far in the past to know for sure? Does he guide all mutations, or some mutations, or no mutations?
> >
> > If science is blind to God, who is going to put the pieces together to help people understand what “God-guided evolution” means? It won’t be science. This is the direction ID could have gone, but instead it seems like an almost entirely deconstructive project (finding holes in evolutionary explanations, attacking methodological naturalism, pushing “what about …”isms). I don’t think BioLogos has adequately answered the question “what does God-guided evolution mean?” but maybe that’s not something that’s easy to answer for anyone. Maybe we need a new generation of philosophers, theologians, and scientists who are of the CASE (Christians who Affirm the Science of Evolution) variety to dig into this question in an interdisciplinary and exploratory way instead of siloed and entrenched “camps”.
>
> > [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/77):
> >
> > > [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/75):
> > >
> > > “Does God guide evolution?” is a properly formed question. It is intelligible, and in principle answerable.
> >
> > It is not intelligible to people who are not sure what is being asked. There natural response would be to ask for a definition of “guided” but you seem to object to that response.
> [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/79):
>
> Most TEs/ECs are well-read in the science but don’t have a clearly articulated metaphysical view of God and also tend to assume a Cartesian discontinuity between the natural and supernatural. Thus to “guide” something is to periodically introduce a discontinuity in nature like a Paleyan watchmaker.
>
> My own answer, as a classical theist, CASE, and Calvinist: yes, God “guides” evolution, in the sense that he ordains it _exactly_ to his divinely chosen purpose, but he also “guides” gravity, electromagnetism, chemical reactions, and all other natural processes in the universe. There’s nothing particularly special about evolution. There is no part of the natural or supernatural realms which escapes God’s sovereign will. There are no accidents or true randomness in the system.
>
> That being said, I don’t affirm _occasionalism_ , where God is the direct cause of every natural phenomenon that we observe. Instead, I affirm the traditional view that God works through secondary causes by imbuing genuine causal power to various entities in nature, but he is still the primary cause of the being of everything. _How_ exactly God ordains everything to accord with his will is not something that anyone can know for sure. It is partially a mystery. But I don’t think it matters much to know the details, since even natural laws are ordained towards God’s sovereign will.
>
> Is this a form of avoiding the question? I don’t think so. There are many parts of the Christian faith where we affirm certain beliefs (e.g. that God is a Trinity) but we cannot fully explain how that “works”.
> [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/80):
>
> > [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/79):
> >
> > Most TEs/ECs are well-read in the science but don’t have a clearly articulated metaphysical view of God and also tend to assume a Cartesian discontinuity between the natural and supernatural. Thus to “guide” something is to periodically introduce a discontinuity in nature like a Paleyan watchmaker.
>
> Agreed, on all points. But note that if a TE/EC thinker has that understanding of “guide” then the TE/EC will answer “No” to the question “Did God guide evolution?” Yet when Dennis Venema was asked by “Crude” on the BioLogos Forum whether he thought God guided evolution, he did not answer “No”; he instead stretched out the discussion over several days by asking Crude what he meant by “guide.” And though each of Crude’s reformulations made it crystal-clear what he meant by “guide”, still Dennis kept answering obliquely. The question was never answered. This was gamesmanship, not sincere dialogue. We know this for certain, because in many other places on BioLogos, Dennis had made clear his view that, while God _could have_ tinkered with evolution to bring about certain results, Dennis saw no need for God to do so, natural causes of evolution being (in Dennis’s view) sufficient to account for all the results without need of additional tinkering, adjustments, guidance, manipulations, etc. from God. So in other words, Dennis did not believe that God “guided” evolution in the sense you are talking about (introducing a discontinuity), but in his conversation with Crude wouldn’t say so straight out. And if would have been easy; all he had to say was: “If by “guided” you mean, intervened supernaturally, broke the continuity of nature to cause evolution to arrive at a point it would not have arrived at by the usual natural mechanism, then no, I don’t think God guided evolution.” He could have said that at the very start, and saved much time and verbal wrangling. That’s what he would have done, had he been interested in communication, rather than verbal hairsplitting.
>
> Anyhow, I’m not blaming you for an old conversation you weren’t party to, but merely indicating that sometimes claims that one doesn’t understand what the other person means are not credible. And this sort of gamesmanship was a routine feature of responses in the BioLogos Forum all through the Falk/Giberson years, and continued to some extent under Haarsma’s regime. The culture of the place was very defensive, especially whenever a questioner was perceived as representing either ID or creationism.
>
> As for the rest of your answer, it is more philosophically able than anything I ever saw on BioLogos. None of the BioLogos leaders, many of whom had published celebrated books on faith and science, ever rose to the level of articulateness that you have demonstrated in this post, and in many of your other posts. This is all the more striking, as you are much younger than any of them, and they have had in some cases three or four decades of “lead time” on you to read up on theology, philosophy, etc. I would like to see a little more energy and intellectual dedication from people claiming to be able to show that faith and science are not in conflict. A little more reading of Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, etc. After all, you are not a philosopher or theologian, but a physicist, but you have been making time to read difficult Thomistic philosophy and theology, and your level of understanding shows this. The BioLogos folks could have done the same. But they never did. (With the usual exception of Ted Davis, and later, Jim Stump.) They seemed to believe in preparing their arguments on the science side, but “winging it” in their arguments on the theology side. It was most frustrating for those who wanted to see high-level conceptual interaction between the fields.
>
> No, your answer does not avoid the question. I wish you were in charge of BioLogos. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 3:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/2 "2020-08-09T15:45:17Z")
I have not interacted with or read a lot of what Dennis Venema has to say on God “guiding” evolution, but **if** @Eddie’s account of the exchange is true, then my guess is that some ECs and TEs are treating the question not as a genuine intellectual question but as a rhetorical battle as to not accidentally appear to agree with whatever ID proponents are saying and becoming associated with them and what they represent. The word “guide” seems to have a deep connotation and history in the battle between different origins advocacy organizations. Since I don’t represent any major organization or camp, I don’t feel as reluctant to express my own personal opinions.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 3:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/3 "2020-08-09T15:49:22Z")
I do think that the leadership (e.g. Jim Stump) is strongly inclined to Christian physicalism, and a metaphysical commitment to denying miracles (except regarding Jesus). They’ve stated this in many ways over the years, often (as @Eddie notes) through strategic ambiguity.
As long as they affirm the Resurrection of Jesus (as they do), Christian physicalism and anti-supernaturalism can be consistent with orthodox Christianity, or at least the historical creeds, so no witch hunts please. In fact, it doesn’t seem much different than cessationalism ([Cessationalism, a Dying Fashion](https://www.phillipchan.org/cessationalism-a-dying-fashion/)).
However, I think in the case of BioLogos, this theological position functioned as a _presupposition_ that caused them to make some large scientific errors. It doesn’t seem they were able to separate this theological position from their scientific analysis and claims.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 4:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/4 "2020-08-09T16:05:59Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> They’ve stated this in many ways over the years, often (as @Eddie notes) through strategic ambiguity.
@Eddie, is this close the core challenge for you? Do you prefer if these things are stated up front an worked out, rather than through indirect means?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 7:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/5 "2020-08-09T19:54:19Z")
> [@American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/american-majority-accepts-god-guided-evolution-is-this-true-for-biologos-as-well/4584/79):
>
> Is this a form of avoiding the question? I don’t think so.
I think so. It certainly doesn’t answer the question, since your answer to “what does it mean to say that God guides evolution” seems to be “I don’t know”. But if you don’t know, that just reduces to the faith that it must be so because it must be so. There can certainly be no evidence either for or against the proposition.
---
### Author:  [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 9:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/6 "2020-08-09T21:50:11Z")
You’re right that I don’t know how divine “guidance” happens. But I would say that even if I can’t answer the question “how exactly does God guide evolution, in light of what we know from science, philosophy, and theology?” right now, I can answer the question “Does God guide evolution?” - which is “yes, like He guides any other natural process, including deterministic ones”.
Perhaps the difference between my reply and the people @Eddie mentioned is that even if we both don’t know exactly how God’s guidance happens, I am willing to openly connect it with some important traditional commitments about God, namely that God is sovereign over all of creation and immanent in it. Secondly, I am also willing to show that I am aware there has been centuries of philosophical and theological work relevant to this. Thirdly, I also explain that whatever the answer to the “how” question is, it’s different from how most ID proponents and some ECs view it.
I think you’re right to point out that these traditional commitments about God are not conclusions to scientific or philosophical arguments, but dogmatic commitments. But shared commitment to dogma, such as that expressed in the Nicene creed, is really important in an intra-Christian context. It is part of what it means to “speak the language of theologians”. There are different rules of dialogue here which must be followed to establish trust. That’s also why Josh will win some sympathy even with YECs when he puts his commitment to Jesus front and center in his presentations.
(I would also say that there is a parallel version of this happening when one interacts with scientists in a certain field. Instead of dogma, to “speak the language” of a field of science, it is important to refer to certain famous models, experiments, concepts and theorems which most scientists in that field hold as important or paradigmatic for the field, in a Kuhnian sense. To do so more effectively establishes your credibility that you know what you’re talking about and that you are aware of and respect the current state of knowledge in the field.)
Now, there is certainly room to explore how special divine action could possibly happen, given what we know from science, philosophy, and theology. Scientists and theologians have gone this route, such as hypothesizing that God could work utilizing the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, for example. I haven’t read enough about this topic to articulate my preferred proposal, which is why I can’t answer the “how” question right now. Maybe once I do, I can actually explain more about how I think God’s guidance in nature actually “works”. But even so, I doubt that my position will be more than just tentative speculation that will not persuade many people, because such is the nature of most theological arguments except for very simple ones. Thus, I think it’s more important that we start by articulating our shared fundamental commitments and go out from there.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 11:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/7 "2020-08-09T23:02:35Z")
> [@dga471](#):
>
> I can’t answer the question “how exactly does God guide evolution, in light of what we know from science, philosophy, and theology?” right now,
Let’s remove the equivocation. You can’t answer how exactly he does it, and you can’t answer even roughly or vaguely how he does it or what “it” is, and it isn’t just right now that you can’t do that, it’s ever. But sure, if it’s your faith in a mystery that you think is essential, there’s no further to go. The conversation ends, and I’m fine with that.
> [@dga471](#):
>
> I would also say that there is a parallel version of this happening when one interacts with scientists in a certain field.
I wouldn’t call this in any way parallel. That’s not dogma, and when we talk about it, we know what it means.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 11:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/8 "2020-08-09T23:24:52Z")
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I wouldn’t call this in any way parallel.
The part he is saying that parallels science is this:
> [@dga471](#):
>
> Instead of dogma, to “speak the language” of a field of science, it is important to refer to certain famous models, experiments, concepts and theorems which most scientists in that field hold as important or paradigmatic for the field, in a Kuhnian sense. To do so more effectively establishes your credibility that you know what you’re talking about and that you are aware of and respect the current state of knowledge in the field.
That is undeniable true about how scientific community works, at least on a social level.
---
### Author:  [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 11:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/9 "2020-08-09T23:37:48Z")
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You can’t answer how exactly he does it, and you can’t answer even roughly or vaguely how he does it or what “it” is, and it isn’t just right now that you can’t do that, it’s ever.
There are three clauses in the above sentence. I agree with the first two, but not the third. Not sure where you get that from.
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I wouldn’t call this in any way parallel. That’s not dogma, and when we talk about it, we know what it means.
I think the parallels are closer than you think. In quantum mechanics, we affirm the results of experiments which are pretty clear and the equations that are deduced from those experiments. But what quantum mechanics really “means” is a complete mystery, as Feynman famously said. But it doesn’t matter. Certain paradigmatic experimental demonstrations (such as the Stern Gerlach experiment) still effectively _function_ as “dogma” in the field of quantum mechanics in a functional, Kuhnian sense.
Note that by “dogma” I don’t mean “something we force ourselves to believe in because we have no good justification for it” but instead “something that is foundational to the field and defines how we form subsequent theoretical predictions and interpret experimental results.” Some “dogma” in science may be well justified by empirical data, some are simply too foundational to be justified by empirical evidence (e.g. the assumption that there is uniformity in nature), and some are just bad assumptions but people haven’t realized them yet.
---
### Author:  [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)
#### Post date: [August 9, 2020, 11:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/10 "2020-08-09T23:40:21Z")
Yes, I’m referring here mostly to the social level, where rhetoric matter. Because the OP here isn’t just about the substance of the answer to the question of “Does God guide X?” but also how it is presented.
---
### Author:  [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 12:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/11 "2020-08-10T00:26:03Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> @Eddie, is this close the core challenge for you? Do you prefer if these things are stated up front an worked out, rather than through indirect means?
Yes, I prefer things stated up front. I like a world where everybody means what they say, and says what they mean, rather than a world in which people wrap their true feelings and beliefs in all kinds of external guises for self-protective reasons. One of my frustrations with so many in the origins debates – whether atheist or creationist or EC – is that much of what they say and do seems framed in language that disguises motives and commitments. Maybe a prof at a conservative seminary leans liberal, but fears losing his job, so he talks and argues in odd ways that are hard to penetrate. Maybe an ex-fundamentalist is an atheist, but still a part of him wants to hold on to faith, but he disguises that part – even from himself – by zealous tirades against Christianity or religion in general, which deep down he knows rely on caricatures. Maybe a BioLogos leader thinks about God largely deistically, but can’t openly say so in the evangelical atmosphere in his church or college, so he speaks obliquely and ambiguously when ideas such as guidance or sovereignty are brought up.
I grew up in a different world, in liberal, mainstream, wishy-washy Protestantism, where you could say anything without getting banned from your church, and I was educated in secular universities, not religious colleges, where every view from radical Nietzschianism to radical Marxism was tolerated. I’m not used to caginess, guardedness, self-protective masks and dodges, etc. But unfortunately, in origins debates, these things are common. I just got tired of seeing the BioLogos leaders constantly acting as if they were walking on egg shells. I wanted a rigorous intellectual debate on metaphysical and epistemological issues related to religion/science questions, and no one at BioLogos (except Ted Davis) seemed interested in that. They all seemed to be trying to protect something. But my mind is Socratic, the very opposite of a protective mind. I believe in intellectual risk-taking, and that’s not common in origins debates. Tactical speech, tactical silence, etc. are all too common.
One of the most interesting guys in the debates is @vjtorley, who apparently doesn’t care who he offends, but just goes after the truth as well as he can. He even puts his own Christian faith on the table for examination. I don’t always agree with him on details, but I like his fearless attitude. The philosopher knows no fear. But I always felt that BioLogos was permeated by fear, fear of fundamentalism, and perhaps in some cases, of lapsing back into fundamentalism (which is where many EC leaders came from). It’s very hard to have a relaxed talk with someone who is driven by fear, and whose intellectual responses are colored by that fear. I could talk with Ted Davis because he was fearless. The others, from Giberson and Falk all the way through to Kramer and Stump, I found difficult, because they were not fearless.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 1:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/12 "2020-08-10T01:14:52Z")
> [@dga471](#):
>
> Not sure where you get that from.
Do you think that some day you will be able to say exactly how God acts (or whatever verb you prefer) in the world?
> [@dga471](#):
>
> something that is foundational to the field and defines how we form subsequent theoretical predictions and interpret experimental results
But God acting in everything, or in evolution, isn’t foundational to Christianity, is it?
And I still don’t think the analogy works.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 4:44am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/13 "2020-08-10T04:44:43Z")
8 posts were split to a new topic: [Do Any Atheists Indulge in Charactures?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-any-atheists-indulge-in-charactures/11381)
---
### Author:  [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 2:06am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/15 "2020-08-10T02:06:57Z")
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Do you think that some day you will be able to say exactly how God acts (or whatever verb you prefer) in the world?
Perhaps we may be able to shed light on some of the ways in which he can act specially. Not a complete explanation, but some explanation, narrowing down the possibilities. Your statement was that we can never say anything about how God acts in nature, never ever, not even roughly or vaguely.
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> But God acting in everything, or in evolution, isn’t foundational to Christianity, is it?
God ordaining everything to his goals is foundational to most branches of traditional theology.
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> And I still don’t think the analogy works.
Assertions without argument can be dismissed without argument.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 3:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/17 "2020-08-10T03:33:04Z")
> [@dga471](#):
>
> Perhaps we may be able to shed light on some of the ways in which he can act specially.
What gives you the idea that this is possible?
> [@dga471](#):
>
> God ordaining everything to his goals is foundational to most branches of traditional theology.
Everything? So would you say that anyone who doesn’t think so is not a true Christian?
> [@dga471](#):
>
> Assertions without argument can be dismissed without argument.
Agreed. Let me try this: in science, the point is to establish that you understand the field; but in religion, the apparent point is to establish that you share beliefs and establish trust based, apparently, on community. I’d say those are not comparable.
---
### Author:  [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 4:40am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/21 "2020-08-10T04:40:47Z")
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Let me try this: in science, the point is to establish that you understand the field; but in religion, the apparent point is to establish that you share beliefs and establish trust based, apparently, on community. I’d say those are not comparable
I am probably oversimplifying but I thought @dga471 was making a reasonable point about getting clarity on what is meant by ‘guidance’ in the context of a certain omnipotent god. I think this is reasonably similar to getting clarity on what is meant by ‘heritable’ or by ‘evidence in support of’ in the context of a particular scientific subdiscipline. No one is going to identify guidance by the gods, at least because no one can show the opposite but also because the gods are imaginary. This is not relevant IMO to what Daniel is saying, and so I really think his comparison is fine.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 5:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/22 "2020-08-10T05:23:49Z")
> [@Eddie](#):
>
> I just got tired of seeing the BioLogos leaders constantly acting as if they were walking on egg shells.
Well, in their defense. they probably had reason to walk on eggshells.
Perhaps you wanted the intellectual conversation that they were never prepared to give you. If that’s the case, perhaps it’s best to accept as they are, and find elsewhere what you needed.
---
### Author:  [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 10:19am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/23 "2020-08-10T10:19:35Z")
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Well, in their defense. they probably had reason to walk on eggshells.
Well, yes, given that most of them hardly knew anything about theology, yet made frequent theological statements, when people showed up who actually had read Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Wesley, etc., they might well have felt that they have to tiptoe very carefully to avoid exposure in front of their evangelical target audience. 🙂
> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Perhaps you wanted the intellectual conversation that they were never prepared to give you.
Very true, except for the “you”. It wasn’t just me. It was a whole bunch of people. Jon Garvey had the same problem with them. So did Dave Wallace, a guy named pds, and many others. We all thought that BioLogos, with that pretentious Greek-based name, suggesting something academic or at least intellectual, was a serious theoretical effort to harmonize science with Christian theology, rather than simply an advocacy organization trying to make Christians from evangelical backgrounds comfortable with evolution. Hence the constant disconnection in the conversations.
I think that Falk etc. perceived the objectors to their theological statements as creationists acting out of malice aforethought; I think they never perceived that the objections came out of a genuine concern for theological clarity and academic accuracy. I expect that this was partly due to the fact that Falk, Applegate, etc. had no idea at all of how theology was studied in a serious academic (as opposed to evangelical-churchy) context, no idea of the level of historical and philosophical rigor that is required. They simply had never encountered people like myself or Jon Garvey before, and did not know how to constructively react. So they fell back on the reflexes that they had acquired from dealing with Ken Ham, Henry Morris, etc., which is like using badminton moves when the object coming over the net is a tennis ball.
But hey, how did we get into this? Was it George’s question about BioLogos? I think I already answered it: BioLogos never endorsed God-guided evolution. The phrase gave them the cooties. So we can drop the topic of BioLogos. Please!
---
### Author:  [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 1:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/24 "2020-08-10T13:43:40Z")
> [@sfmatheson](#):
>
> I am probably oversimplifying but I thought @dga471 was making a reasonable point about getting clarity on what is meant
I don’t think that’s what he was saying, but perhaps he will tell us. It wasn’t about clarity but about shared belief. There is in fact no clarity, and I think he has agreed that there isn’t.
---
### Author:  [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)
#### Post date: [August 10, 2020, 2:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377/26 "2020-08-10T14:05:36Z")
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Agreed. Let me try this: in science, the point is to establish that you understand the field; but in religion, the apparent point is to establish that you share beliefs and establish trust based, apparently, on community. I’d say those are not comparable.
For what I’m trying to say there is not much of a distinction between “sharing beliefs” and “understanding the field”. In both cases one seeks to identify whether another person is a member of one’s community (whether it’s a community of scientists in a sub-field or a community of theologians in a certain tradition). A scientist doesn’t subject every fellow scientist they meet to a comprehensive test on whether they truly understand the field, as that is unrealistic. Instead, we look for shared technical jargon, concepts, and interests, to know that we’re talking “on the same wavelength”.
It seems that you’re just hung up on wanting to make sure that science is “objective” and about “knowledge and understanding” and while theology is “subjective” and about arbitrary “shared beliefs” without justification. That is completely irrelevant from my point. Regardless of the foundation or justification of the disciplines, there are undoubtedly communities of scientists and communities of theologians. They are both communities with certain rules and norms of discourse.
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Everything? So would you say that anyone who doesn’t think so is not a true Christian?
I’d argue they’re in the minority and heterodox, even if they’re Christian. It also depends on the specifics of what they say.
> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> What gives you the idea that this is possible?
What gives you the idea that it’s not? What’s the use of making statements about what a field of study can or cannot **ever** accomplish in the future? Seems to be a lot of speculation in both cases.
[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/harmonizing-evolution-and-guidance-at-biologos/11377.md?page=2)