Welcome Greg to the Forum

(Daniel Ang) #263

Evolutionary science is not the same as evolutionary worldview.

(Greg) #264

On the face of God’s green earth i see no better display of the typical definition of the word “evolutionist” than in this statement: [quote=“dga471, post:263, topic:1199”]
we are not asking you change your theology. We have, in fact, shown how your theology could be compatible with evolutionary science.

An evolutionist is a person who believes that evolution is the cause for the formulation of complex life. The definition of evolutionist does not involve reference to God. In fact, i would believe that most mainstream scientists believe in a higher being yet are still proud evolutionists.

I think it is unfair that you have placed a “young earth proponent” lable next to my name. I have never demonstrated my desire to prove that the earth is young. Not even once in the entire series of dialogue and not even once when i was involved w biologos. Could you have someone overseeing this website place the lable “anti- evolutionary Christian” by my name?

(George) #265


How many times do i have to remind you that Christian evolutionists do not universally adopt randomness as relevant!

(Neil Rickert) #266

I’ll just comment that I do not sneer at you.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, even if I don’t share them.

However, I have pretty much ceased replying to your posts. That’s because you continue to make false statements about what evolutionists and TEs believe. There’s just no point in repeatedly explaining evolution to you, if you are going to ignore the explanations.

Note that by “ignore the explanations”, I only mean that you continue to make false statements about what we believe.

(George) #267


If what you said was actually true you would be able to point to a Christian who believes Evolutionary Theism is based on truly random events.

So name one!

(Neil Rickert) #268

This evolutionist believes that evolution is the ongoing process for maintaining a diverse biosphere. I make no commitment as to whether it is the cause.

(Greg) #269

Im very sorry if you think this way. Can i be honest? I am troubled because propenents of evolutionary science as the vehicle by which God creates hardly ever map out scientific methods by which bio machines exist that attribute this to the Creator God who, according to the Bible transcends nature. I want to not make false statements, but i have read so many posts and i still dont know what is true enough of you to not make false statements.

Ps. I am not person who ever argues that the planet is young. I am still processing my position with this. I am a Christian who heartedly disagrees with evolution as proposed by mainstream science. Please take young earth creationist off my name.

(Greg) #270

Ok. So would it be fair to suggest that a evolutionary theist of the type you describe is in support of about 95% of the methodologies espoused by mainstream science for explaining how complex life exists on this planet or more like 80%? Or perhaps 50% ?

If a person is a scientist, then act like a scientist and give me details that are more than “i believe natural evolution is responsible for complex life and i believe that perhaps God intervened somewhere in the process” that is such subjective gobbittygook! It gets us nowhere in truely trying to have a rational discussion about the terms. The very same ones who say they deny ID as true science because ID is more philosophical. WHAT? Wheres a mirror.

(George) #271


I find your refusal to honor Joshua’s distinctions as intentionally hostile to @swamidass .

(Greg) #272

Hi Daniel: Would you agree that the average scientist today that attempts to determine the reality of how we exist via the nature is immediately engaged in a philosophy that BELIEVES they are capable of determining that reality based on the laws of nature?

I disagree that philosophers only get to analyze that definition of science, because assuming that any rational person would answer the above question with a “yes” suggests that science as it is defined by the mainstream is exactly equally philosophical as ID. Do you agree?

Theological Premises in Design Arguments?
(Daniel Ang) #273

Scientists don’t “determine reality based on the laws of nature.” Reality exists as it is, and scientists try to discover things about it using the tools of science. It turns out that the tools of science have given fruitful results - we know many laws of nature that describe nature very precisely. But scientists have no say in what these correct laws of nature are. Often scientists hypothesize certain laws, only for them to turn out to be wrong later. But yes, because of the success of science, scientists have come to believe that science is a useful and fruitful thing to do.

We must remember that the tools of science are limited, so that they only describe a small slice of reality, even if they are very successful in that realm. For example, the laws of physics only describe the nature and behavior of particles in certain conditions. They cannot say anything about human relationships, God, morality, or other aspects of reality that exist.

You’re misunderstanding what I mean. All human activity, including science, must involved philosophical assumptions of some sort. For example, to fix a car you have to assume that 1) Cars exist, 2) Cars have certain properties that don’t change, 3) What you know about fixing cars last week is still true today. Does this mean that fixing cars is a philosophical activity like thinking why God exists or what is right and wrong? Of course not. Thus, your way of framing the question (whether science is “as philosophical as ID” or not) is not helpful. Science does have some philosophical assumptions built in. These assumptions were chosen based on what seems to have led to the most success so far. But that does not mean that these assumptions are sufficient to give a complete picture of the world. Thus, though science assumes that it cannot detect miracles or God directly, it does not mean that science comples us to believe that God does not exist.

(Greg) #274

This is the perfect example of how you, a science minded person is fixed to a philosophy nearing naturalistic scietism. You were so focused on making a point about how to figure how to fix the car that you completely missed the very real philosophical premise i was trying to suggest to you in that when the sane person sees the car in existence, it never crosses his mind that this car came into existance via random occurances in nature.

Ok, step back. It is one thing to predict the weather. Yes science can see patterns and predict where a storm is going to hit…not always successful, but true. We are now talking the existence of highly complex bio machines. There is NO RESONABLE PATTERN OR PREMISE found anywhere in nature that suggests even a hint of legitimacy that an eyeball was developed through series of the selection of random chance mutations which are mostly neutral, many times bad for an organism. Yet the scientist still tries to explain its existence as a naturalistic process and feels authoritative in declaring that this MUST BE TRUE. Why? I would declare to you it is due to philosophy.

A scientist who tries to discover the pathway by which that eyeball came into existence can believe that it does so through natural events, or not. As soon as he chooses the faith that it came into existence by natural events, he is IMMEDIATELY a philosopher and theist just like the proponent of ID. If this person does so and the event was via intelligent source, he misses the truth every time.

With all of that said, when it comes to the determination about how complex bio machines exist, do you agree that the mainstream scientist is JUST AS PHILOSOPHICALLY MINDED and belief oriented as the proponent of ID?

(George) #275


Name a Christian Evolutionist that argues for randomness?

(Edward Robinson) #276

Kathryn Applegate and Ard Louis, in many columns on BioLogos – and specifically using the term “random” or “randomness.” I once counted about 16 BioLogos columns by title or dominant theme that dealt with “randomness”, most of them arguing in one way or another that “God used randomness rather than design” to create the world. We don’t need to suppose design, when randomness (or, trying to sound more sophisticated, “stochastic processes”) can do the trick – that was the main thrust of the arguments. Of course, here “randomness” also showed the superfluity of “special creation” as well. Special creation implies planning for ordered, complex outcomes, whereas randomness produces (allegedly) complex biological order without planning. So all God has to do is get “randomness” going (a zillion hydrogen atoms bouncing this way and that in a vast nebula will do nicely), and the universe will sort itself out stochastically, marching from molecules to man through cosmic, chemical and organic evolution.

In a column on the Hump, I pointed out that Loren Haarsma at one point on BioLogos corrected the worship of the unlimited power of randomness by other ECs. Indeed, you participated in this Hump discussion, so I’m surprised that months later you can say that no Christian evolutionist argues for randomness. Is your memory growing short with age, George? :smile:

(Greg) #277

What does this mean? You mean that josh placed a,“young earth” label by my name? I have demostrated that i am far more likely to believe that God is capable of creating an earth quickly than i would trust evolution as the vehicle by which He created, but have never chosen to battle for a young earth stance in this setting. It is dishonest in the highest degree for a label as such in these discussions. Josh does not want to be labeled “evolutionist” because this label can cause people not hear his science that suggests legitimacy in the science of evolution. Likewise, in fairness, i dont like the label young earth creationist because the disdain for anybody of in the mainstream crowd for such a person immediately causes them to distrust anti- evolutionary arguements from guys like me.

So it seems the goal of this website IS to mold people to fit their mindset, whatever it may be, to conform with evolutionary science, which i have clearly demonstrated is highly philosophical at its core. If one agrees w me that if the scientist who tends to look for a naturalistic explanation of our beginnings will typically find one as the result, then if i put two and two together it seems that true goal here in this entire endeavor is to promote a philosophy. Or a system of belief. That is what i define as religion. Am i wrong?

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #278

Really? :imp: Is it working? :smiling_imp:

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #279

He means that you are not acknowledging the distinction between evolutionary science and an evolutionary worldview.

Thanks for asking. You are wrong.

(Daniel Ang) #280

And Greg, you were so focused on making your own point about ID that you didn’t even bother to think about the point I was trying to raise about fixing cars. I cannot engage with you if you choose not to engage with me. It took time for me to think about that example of fixing cars. If you choose to ignore it entirely, then what is the use for me to spend time engaging with you? Do you understand?

Yes. Everyone is “philosophically minded.” Everyone has beliefs. I don’t disagree with ID because it is “more philosophical”. I disagree with it because I think its philosophical assumptions are wrong.

(Robert Byers) #281

I’m YEC and quite intellectually active about it. This blog is not here to demand you change thour conclusions but is a discussion place with a hope that thrth should prevail Its about intelligent discussions. its not a regular debate place but weighing of ideas.
I have been here weeks. There is nothing to complain about here except follow the intent of the blog.
I think its really a attempt to have more informed disagreements then other places.
Nobody cares about anybodys theology presumptions except people care about conclusions.

(George) #282


Oh for goodness sake… i mean HERE at PeacefulScience.org .

Will your hostilities with BioLogos ever end?