Swamidass and Gauger: A Debate in California

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@John_Harshman

Not if it’s true. And it’s clearly true, as you don’t say anything to address the question. Your outrage is so misplaced it’s a bit comical.

@John_Harshman, I think you must be talking about someone else.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie

I’m sure there are Christian biologists like that. The difficulty always comes when one asks them how God “imprints” the teleology onto the natural processes. The discussion then usually becomes either very general, vague, and nebulous, or stops altogether.

@Eddie,

If we played Behe’s videotaped interview where he discusses the hypothetical example of the Billiards Ball shot … being arranged via natural processes… would you score that as a good response? I know I do… and I’m not an I.D. supporter.

I think the others in this room would understand your position better if you provided an example - - from ANYONE - - of what a good discussion would look like.

I think Behe’s discussion is right on point. Do you agree? If so, then his discussion can be an exemplar. If you don’t agree, could you provide an exemplar of what you mean?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@gbrooks9

@John_Harshman, I think you must be talking about someone else.

And I still say that the two of you are talking past one another. It would make more sense to just disengage.

[John_Harshman]

@gbrooks9

in the complete and total sense that without God, not only would everything be different… there might not be anything at all

That’s not a sense that’s compatible with either the words or the idea under discussion.

@gbrooks9

God’s natural engagement in the world “is not merely an hypothesis” to me!

But that isn’t the point under contention or in need of clarification. Focus.

@gbrooks9

the kind of discussion that includes God sending rain to the just and the unjust (simply through natural processes of evaporation and condensation)

How do the natural processes of evaporation and condensation constitute “sending” in any meaningful sense?

@gbrooks9

But when we say God designed and built Mt. Everest, we get “how, how, how, how”…

Yes, because it doesn’t make sense do say that he designed or built it if all he did was set up the laws of physics which eventually resulted in Everest.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@nwrickert

And I still say that the two of you are talking past one another. It would make more sense to just disengage.

@nwrickert,

Such a dilemma…

@John_Harshman implies I’m lying. And he refuses to ask for an explanation from @swamidass.

So I would say he is trying to engineer a context where I will not withdraw from the discussion in order to defend my honor, and thus continue to make myself available to his pummeling.

I tell you what, I think you are right @nwrickert.

I’m off the case! Good luck with the ol’ boy…

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

See what I wrote not far above to structureoftruth (Matthew):

“If a TE/EC argued that God determined the outcome “man” by a perfect pool shot made at the time of the Big Bang (or the first cell), that would be logically compatible with the doctrines of omnipotence and sovereignty and providence; but I don’t get the impression that many EC/TE folks envision God’s role in evolution in that way. I’ve never heard any BioLogos or ASA TE advocate that position.”

So I gave a clear example of a potential Christian position compatible with doctrines of omnipotence etc. – but also noted that no one on BioLogos has ever advocated that position. (Some may hold it privately, but no one has advocated it.)

Is that the sort of example you wanted me to provide?

[John_Harshman]

@gbrooks9

@John_Harshman implies I’m lying.

Don’t.

@gbrooks9

And he refuses to ask for an explanation from @swamidass.

As you may recall, I invoked his name three times, with no result.

@gbrooks9

So I would say he is trying to engineer a context

No, that isn’t true either. I’d say that was a paranoid reaction if I didn’t know you’d be all offended.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie

Is that the sort of example you wanted me to provide?

@Eddie, yes, that should do it!

I think I’ll write up a transcript… which is quite challenging with just the computer I have… which will represent a good exemplar. It would certainly be timely!

And so instead of asking someone to come up with a statement from scratch, we can ask them to read it, and ask them how they would change it, if at all!

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@nwrickert

I brought up “god of the gaps” because I knew that @John_Harshman was familiar with that.

Jordan:

I think they would say F = ma is just as much God as the Resurrection.

Yes, that’s a good example. We can ask “Why is the world such that Newton’s laws work very well?” And that is a kind of gap. It isn’t a gap that the atheist much worries about, but a Christian is likely to see God as explaining that.

Yeah, I guess I would probably call it “added layer of understanding” rather than a “gap” but I see what you mean.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Harshman

But what I was trying to figure out is what “God influences evolution through natural means” refers to. Telling me that natural and supernatural are just alternatives says nothing about that.

There are many answers to this question and different theists will give you different answers. Some possible answers are -
a) Nature (meaning created things as opposed to God who is uncreated) is an extension of God’s being and not distinct from God. In this context everything is an action of God. Including your own…
This is not usually a Christian perspective.
b) Nature is created by God but distinct from his being. In this case we have the following options -

1. Nature has no agency, everything that happens including regular measurable stuff that science studies is an act of God through direct control exerted by God over nature.
2. God preprogrammed everything that will happen in creation by arranging matter and deciding the manner in which matter will engage with itself. In this case, everything nature does is an Act of God in that he foresaw it and pre determined it to happen that way. It’s his plan, design etc.
3. A mixture of 1 and 2. God predetermined some stuff, takes direct action in others… and also allows human beings and other organisms to have their own agency/freewill to act on their own initiative. Here God knows everything that will happen, while he might not directly or indirectly control all of it. Something’s happen because he doesn’t prevent it.

This is the best I can do on the subject. I am sure the theologians in the group can do a much better job.
Based on what they believe, it becomes perfectly legitimate for theists to claim natural phenomenon like the Sun rising tomorrow happened because God caused it to happen, even though we know the mechanisms behind how day/night circles work. We acknowledge God as the source of this cycle.

Edit: Here supernatural refers to an action of God that cannot be explained by the regular actions of nature observed by us. For example the ressurection.