Very true @Patrick. Of note also, ID is supposed to be neutral on theistic evolution. Both Michael Denton and Michael Behe are theistic evolutionists. @Greg, perhaps you can learn from them about how ID has produced zero evidence against common descent.
Dr. Swamidass is a scientist. He is working at the cutting edge of evolutionary science. Science that can help human beings.
This is complete psychobabble. This is anti-science hate speech disguised as Christianity. I would hope that all would see it as such and disavow it as such.
At 50, you can expect another 30-35 years due to the medical science and technology that has extended life expectancy enormously. And the science being done today by the next generation of scientists like Dr. Swamidass may get you to 100.
Wow… @Greg, that was a mouthful!
If God is behind evolution, why would it belittle Him?
And @swamidass specifically includes a provision for the special creation of Adam and Eve.
How many pro-Evolution sites do you know where this would be true?
Absolutely and totally not true! This statement is about the biggest lie of the 21st century! Science in the mind of an atheist may be neutral on the question of a creator. I think it takes more blind faith to believe in nothing but that is me. But science…and in this case historical science which seeks to explain the existence of complex bio machines and energy etc that we call life should NEVER stop considering that one valid option for our existence is outside the boundaries of the natural. As soon as the scientist stops considering this as a valid option, he is immediately declaring (from a naturalistic viewpoint) that energy which is becoming disorganized had no beginning. Who took the big match to lite the sun?..well the big bang you say. Who energized this? You cannot take this back to infinity because it does not make sense to the naturalistic scientific mind. For this, all scientists MUST in their endeavor to finding the truth in regards to how complex life arrived on this planet look for the One with the big match…the One outside of the natural, the One outside time. Am i wrong?
For a scientist to say that science has to be naturalistic is to suggest that organized energy has always existed and this is wholly unscientific in the natural mindset. If the scientist wants to suggest that organized energy has always existed, then fine for him. They would not be hired in my school of higher learning. If they agree that there has to be a start, one outside of the natural with the match, then they are ID. If they are ID, then i would suggest to you that the One responsible for what we observe in the universe could be aware of a hundred dimensions that we will never have a clue about on this planet mainly governed in a natural dimension. And if our eyes that see through the natural goggles see things accomplished that were done so supernaturally which again makes the only sense unless you believe organized energy has always been around, we will ALWAYS misinterprete these things through those goggles.
I know you Patrick will call me a fool for believing that i have found the One with the match who lit the sun. He revealed Himself to me in the Bible written by God through His frail servants called humankind. I have scrutized this Book for 30 yrs and this is not just a book about how to wear a plastic smile to make granny proud on Sunday. It is about God who loves all people that He sent His Son to die for us. I am not ashamed!
Of course any god could do anything he or she would want to. If the true God is the God who inspired the Bible and i mean literally inspired the Bible, then you have a whole plethora of problems with evolution being the vehicle driving creation…i have written extensively on this already. The problem i am finding with many scientists represented in this site who claim to know Christ is that they seem zealous for science but disinterested in good Bible scholarship. For goodness sake, i have heard the very gospel that is so simple get shredded because it was interpreted through an evolutionary worldview!
I have made the argument to Josh that the gospel is not just a ticket to heaven. The gift on the other end of the gospel is God! If the gospel is learned through a book we call the Bible, youd think Christians would take care about understanding who He is and how he does things. Am i wrong?
Josh has gone out of his way to engage in dialogue with ID people, including various figures in the Discovery Institute such as Ann Gauger. In fact, these last few days Josh has been in an extensive dialogue with Eric Holloway, who is a former doctoral student of Robert Marks, a major figure in the ID movement. You are, again, repeating falsehood. He has certainly entertained and considered these ideas, much more than what people would expect him to do.
Does Josh accept the arguments that ID theorists make? Currently he does not, and he cannot in good conscience do so, because he disagrees with them. But he has shown a willingness to listen and engage, which is much more than what you have done in this thread.
Greg, I would caution you on making such bold accusations about Josh or anyone else in this forum for that matter. As Proverbs 12:22 says, “The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy” (ESV). You can disagree, but do so peacefully and reasonably. Did not Paul reason with the pagans at the Areopagus about the Scriptures (Acts 17:2-3)? How can you persuade people like Josh and me to agree with you if you keep making false accusations and refuse to attempt to understand others’ viewpoints?
Josh has no obligation to accept a theory that he disagrees with, just as you have no obligation to accept theistic evolution. Throughout this thread you have refused to seriously understand or engage with his arguments and reasoning.
Your imaginations are wrongheaded. They are not based in reality. Josh has no obligation to talk with YECs, yet he tries to do it anyway. Again, you are making false insinuations. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you were wrong about Josh, Greg. “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom” (Proverbs 11:22, ESV).
Neither Kurt Wise nor Josh Swamidass nor anyone else are sitting on the “mountaintop of true knowledge.” That would be a mockery of God’s knowledge, which is vaster and deeper than any human being can even imagine. In any case Christians are not called to focus on “knowledge”, as the Gnostics did. Knowledge does not bring you to heaven, even if it turns out that YEC is true. What saves us is faith in Jesus’s atonement for our sins and our confession that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9). In addition, we are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus (Romans 8:29). What we believe about evolution is inconsequential compared to how we are doing in our spiritual walk to become more like Jesus.
Greg, this goes both ways. There are people who have fallen away from the church because they think that being a Christian entails believing in YEC and distrusting all scientists. I’m sure @Patrick can give you some testimonies. Don’t you think it would have been better for such people to still believe in Christianity and have a personal relationship with Jesus, even if they accept evolution? How many people have come to Christ because of YEC, Greg? How much more would come to Christ if you showed love and understanding to those with whom you disagree?
I am very glad that there are people who still believe in evolution understand that God planting a seed we will call a bacteria or aomeba…something simple and letting the natural formulate all of complex life is a farce. Naturalistic materialistic evolution from some life seed which depends on mutation, selection time and energy is not just irrational to the human mind embedded in this world but is just utterly impossible.
So of course ID would NEVER rule out common decent evolution when intelligence is allowed to intervene. I might be a bit dull but not stupid.
The purpose of ID is to rule out materialistic naturalism which biologos painted w a little god lipstick as they declared ID a bunch of idiots.
Now that naturalism is out, our science will tend to consider the essense of the Intelligence that can do life as we know it. Science should be floored w humility. The God who did this our earthing goggles in this natural paradigm we are embedded into may not ever figure out.
To me, the existance of God trumps mans observational skills. There are many verses in the Bible that suggest this too. Dig into that Bible and in wisdom, allow the Bible to guide your science instead of the other way around. Sounds like you are ID, A Christian ID should think this way
@greg what you fail to realize is that:
- I reject materialistic naturalism.
- I reject ID, while still affirming that God can and did certainly intervene in our origins.
3 I reject the BioLogos view, will still affirming common descent.
- I trust Scripture over science, which is just the human effort to study nature.
I’m a different category. It appears you have not met anyone like me before. According to you I do not exist.
I see that you are a wise person, a good writer and observant. You seem to be friends w Josh as well. I believe that you are in Christ and i hope that you can consider me as your brother. I do not agree with all of your accessment in this. I have spend too much time disgussing too many topics with Josh and others and i have traditionally believed that theistic evolution is a complete enemy to the cross. The problem is, is that the form of evolution that is being espoused by josh and others is continually changing and terms are confused. If josh is not ID, then evolution must be that nature creates the complex out of the simple. This means that God weeds out the weak for the strong to survive, you call it creation and in the end He calls this good. Death is a punishment not a blessing! Suffering is always a curse. Jesus was became a curse on that cross in our place. Evolutionism takes the creation story and all of the principles therein and takes the opposite stance! This is not in line with Gods character in Scripture. When i challenge josh and others w explanations i get more spin…such as i believe in evolution but im not an evolutionist. Or i dont agree with ID but perhaps God intervened in nature. Or the supernatural happened at the cross and other miracles but impossible evolution occurs bc God indwells nature. Ugh! Can you see why i feel that there is an agenda? Its like politics trumps honest discourse and i have been around long enough to equate politics w an agenda.
I agree with you that you dont have to be a yec to become a Christian. However, if a person is not ID, then naturalistic evolution is the only option left. (But josh is not a naturalist but confusing not id either) And if this is the basis away from the foundation of all existence of life in Genesis that proposes creationism, this always leads to bad theology BEYOND the theology of how we were created. I was given a description of the gospel which obviously entales the suffering of Jesus and the conclusion seemed to be that likewise we are being transfered from good to best through suffering in the process of evolution…i cannot remember exactly but really bad theology. Anyway, the evolutionary worldview as espoused by mainstream science and which has historically justified racism AND which i have see over and over again distort good Biblical theology including the gospel is not a friend to Christianity. The Bible says God CREATED animals according to their kinds and male and female He created them. When good science really does not support naturalistic evolution (which is naturalistic if you are not ID) Why would a Christian want to go to a place so unbecomming of Scripture in so many ways?
Lastly, i made the argument recently that ultimately it IS Jesus who saves us but Paul in one of His epistles challenged the church to get it right on who Jesus is. Many today pray to a person named Jesus but the Jesus they are praying to does not match Scripture. Theology is VERY important for Christians. Who is Jesus? Jesus is God. Jn ch 1. Jesus made the universe. Col ch 2 i think. Jesus is eternal. Jesus cares for the weak and heavy laden. It is the observance of all of the complexities of creation that is the main apologetic for the existence of Creator Jesus Ro ch 1 and i must tell you that evolutionism is about the most heinous dismantlings of this crucial apologetic Paul declares to the Church in Rome! How much more i could go on…but when i explain i get confusing replies exactly as i did at Biologos.
In closing, rereading this i find it a bit choppy bc it is really late. Hopefully u get the jist.
Ha ha. My prayer for you my brother is that you find your way through this maze. God is not the author of confusion and what you state is very confusing and can be damning if proposed to others as it could lead to them throwing their arms in the air proclaiming " forget God, He is so confusing and stressful that i will go without Him"
I apologize that in my utter confusion that i interpreted you as politicizing an agenda (biologos) instead, perhaps you are searching. Hopefully you are not succombing to the attitude of being different in order to sell yourself and lots of books. That is unfortunatlely the impetus behind division in the church with denominationalism…everybody wants to start a new unique group and call it his own.
James says ask God for wisdom and He will give it. Oh the Scriptures are so good! Proverbs says that a way seems right to man but in the end it leads to his demise. Along with asking God for wisdom, find it in Scripture. God the Creator of kinds, male and female He created them.
Don’t forget the Dover decision. It is now a matter of law in the United States that ID is not science. ID is creationism which is religion.
Blah, Blah, Blah… Science marches on. Oh btw, did you have your flu shot yet? The virus mutated again and scientists predicted how it mutated and came up with their best estimate on a flu vaccine. I suggest you get it to protect yourself, family and friends from this microscopic killer. It is 100 years since the Spanish flu spread by world war ! shipping killed 50 million people much more than was killed in World War I battles.
Theological Premises in Design Arguments?
The choices are not either/or; they are:
I would side with men like Kurt Wise who is similar and different than number 3. I emailed him a number of months ago with my frustrations about some of the creationist parachurch orgs who seemed tempted to sort of fudge science to fit the worldview we find in Scripture. They mean well, but perhaps God did these things in a way that our science cannot detect. To fudge the science we know to fill what they see as a gap is really to not be truthful. So Wise does not think this is necessary. He wholeheartedly embraces Scripture as the ultimate arbiter of truth and would think it to be foolhearty to change it to conform to mainstream. And when he believes that when there is good science that supports Scriptural knowledge and principle that provide the very foundation upon which the gospel is built upon which also may shed a doubt on a direct enemy of God called materialistic naturalism, then plant those and not be tempted to add spin. I like that! Wise admits that the planet appears old, but I would surmise that he would agree with me that it doesn’t have to be when scientific observation is such sand particle on a beach of all understanding of what is true and because the God we Christians serve is a BIG God who confounds those wise in their own eyes!
As far as ID is concerned, I believe that their statistical science that throws a wrench into naturalism is really really great. The simple idea that an irreducibly complex bio machine is impossible for nature to build slowly via selection and intellectual suicide to think that nature built it in a snap via mutation is incredibly sensible and valuable for the world of science today. The mainstream seems to engage popping vein approaches to prove naturalism in order to avoid God at all costs and what would one expect from the world? Right? If science in the mainstream spent more time in a focus on the value in the God given gift of scientific minds for figuring out solutions present day issues of the many sorts instead of trying to conform it to evolutionism, It would be even better than it is. Perhaps ID then goes beyond to spin their philosophy, just like creationists groups do where the science fudges the details to fit the worldview. This is also dishonest. With that said, in a scientific boxing match, ID knocks out materialistic naturalism in the first minute of the first found.
Thanks George. You are a Christian are you? All this effort to prove how God did things is 100% worthless unless one is building first upon a foundation of humbling themselves before God who made the world and admits that they are a sinner in need of a Savior who died in their place to forgive and rose again and is alive and well working mightily in His saints! If that is you already, then I’m glad to be on the same team with you in passing the word! May be keep each other accountable to be agnostic about our observations and a believer in what we read in Scripture and to actually choose to absorb those beautiful Words from our Creator daily!
Nice weekend and God Bless
Again you miss the point!
Primary Issue: God gives a teleological aspect to all of creation!
If this is what you care about… then when you are on this list, state this truth… AND AVOID references to ID!
The primary truth is valid and intact without any distracting references to I.D. I even agree with you!
But if you keep throwing I.D. into the mix, you dont realize how it foils you. You want to convince Christians that science can detect or confirm God’s teleology. But this is not only a rather arguable point… but it even interferes with your ability to convince folks about anything else.
You are risking your entire presen-tation on what is essentially a philosophical footnote!
I think you’re missing one of Gregs solid points. ID is part of keeping evolutionary claims in check. The design argument is not new it just got additional legs when functional information and irreducibly complex structures were discovered in biology.
According to the Bible, when it comes to complex bio machines in existence, the very wisest of all explanations is that intelligence we know as God created these directly and designed them to reproduce. There is no other worldview that is more rational for the explanation of complex existence. God gave man rationalism this way in order to help us find Him. And He ultimately gives us faith in Jesus forgiving us of our sins in order to be saved by Him.
Also according to the Bible, when it comes to present day problems of many sorts such as financial, health, and spiritual, the Bible says increase your knowledge of how all of creation works in a natural world and in the spiritual arena where God also answers prayer, and wisely formulate that knowledge towards a plan of action. God gave us science. God gave us the Bible. God gave us communication to speak to Him and God will give us answers.
They say one’s greatest strength can become a great weakness. For those in science, they can be so engrained in present day problem solving where they use knowledge wisdom and action that they will in weakness engage the same tools for determining the impossible-impossible things such as what they will declare that irreducibly complex structures formulating slowly by selection or more quickly by mutation. That’s a big problem with science. A big problem needs a solution.
God gifted us with grace by giving us life.
God gifted us after the fall with grace that offers forgiveness of sin for a new life in Christ
God gifted us after the fall with common grace through science to gain knowledge for wisely engaging it action for helping with inevitable problems!
Materialist naturalism wants to turn all three of those truths on their head. Adding a side note about God onto this worldview is blasphemous. God gives us grace and all we have to do us humbly accept.
This beautiful balance is of the Bible. The Bible is a treasure. Read it prayerfully seeking our Creator and He will give you wisdom.
And that would be an error that you think so… and an error that @Greg thinks so… especially since you are both right here in the Blogosphere epicenter defending God-Guided-Evolution.
Your sentence only makes sense if he is arguing a point with atheists. And from the very beginning of my posting… i was clearly talking about Theistic Evolutionary premises.