I’m honestly unsure of the source of this confusion. There are scientists and laypeople interested in science that believe that God is the author of the natural laws that govern science. Perhaps some of the confusion stems from the perception of BioLogos as a scientific organization. It isn’t. It is a Christian organization populated by those aforementioned groups.
If your three-part origins/problem/remedy is how you define “orthodox” Christian, then I do fit that description. The TE/EC viewpoint was initially appealing to me because it affirms God as Creator, and is also consistent with the evidence that I believe offers the best explanation of how God created - through evolutionary processes.
I didn’t single her out. I also mentioned Ard Louis who wrote similar stuff on BioLogos regarding the allegedly creative power of randomness. I once counted something like 15 posts published on BioLogos over the years on that theme, by Applegate, Louis, and a number of other columnists, some of them guest columnists.
I cited Kathryn – and not only her, I mentioned others – because she has been a central figure at BioLogos almost since its inception. She is also one of the few of the old guard still with BioLogos, the others all having moved on. I’m not picking on her as a person, but simply indicating that her thought on how God fits into the origin of life, or into the evolutionary process, is exceedingly vague. But she’s not alone in that. It’s more the rule than the exception that American scientists who are TEs are vague on the theological questions that I and Jon Garvey and others with theologically critical minds are interested in.
There are too many things here to deal with in depth, but briefly:
Point 1. I’m aware that the word “random” is used in many different ways, in various sciences and in everyday speech. I don’t want to make a big deal about the term itself, lest we get caught up in the technical details of what physicists mean by randomness, what neo-Darwinism means by randomness, etc. and get lost in a morass. I’m quite happy to stick with a more general term like “chance.” When we say that life originated by “chance”, we normally mean that it did not originate either by deterministic necessity or by design, but by a concatenation of unplanned events that easily could have been other than they were. The conception of those who think it happened by chance is that it came down to the equivalent of a roll of the dice (even if thousands of times repeated rolls) whether or not Earth would have any life at all. That usage should be intelligible to lay Christians and Christian scientists alike.
Point 2. I agree with you that the question of the origin of life isn’t isolated from other questions, but if you recall, you asked me to focus for the time being on the origin of life. Further, I said that it seemed to me that the logic of some TE arguments about evolution carried over into their conclusions about the origin of life, so I’m making no artificial separation. Finally, from a theological point of view, I’m just as interested in the question of whether and how God acted in evolution as I am in the question of whether and how he acted in the origin of life. (And when I’ve asked questions about God’s role in evolution, as opposed to origin of life, I’ve got the same theological runaround from most TE leaders.)
Point 3. I’m not saying that one can’t have a theological discussion about anti-matter etc. as you have mentioned. It might be that the origin of the balance of matter and anti-matter is something that should be attributed to divine special creation rather than to any natural law. I take no stand on that. If you tell me that this is a live intellectual question among religious physicists, I will take your word for it. But I’m trying to focus on the topics which people in these debates have more generally discussed, i.e., the evolutionary process, and the origin of life. These make sense as examples for everyday folks, as Christians read in their Bibles about the origin of “kinds” and of the first life (or at least of the first things that are called living by the Bible, i.e., birds and sea creatures), and of the origin of man, whereas they don’t read about the origin of anti-matter or black holes or quasars or other things whose existence wasn’t even suspected by people of Biblical times. So I’m not trying to avoid a general question by focusing only on isolated examples; rather, I’m focusing on examples which are of the most interest to people involved in the discussions.
ID writers rarely speak of “purpose” (because the term is ambiguous), but they have written at great length trying to characterize design and design inferences. Dembski’s early books took great pains in this regard, Behe has much to say about it in Darwin’s Black Box and elsewhere, Meyer and others have provided lengthy discussions.
I already indicated that for ID people “randomness” might be one of the natural means God uses to actualize a design, but randomness doesn’t replace design itself. My concern is that sometimes TEs write as if (they may not mean to convey it, but it sounds like it) randomness is sufficient instead of design.
Finally, no my arguments aren’t primarily Biblical or theological. I think there are plenty of good scientific and philosophical reasons for doubting that either evolution or the origin of life proceed by the means frequently envisioned. That does not mean, of course, that no evolution has occurred, but the why and how are in my view much more uncertain than some people would have us believe.
Probably because the Fathers, the formulators of the three Creeds, the great Scholastics, the Reformers, etc. all thought it was more complex than that.
The minimalistic conception of Christianity you offer is necessary, but not sufficient, for traditional, orthodox Christian faith. You describe Christian ethics (and only part of even that), but leave out the overarching Christian world view, including the doctrines of sin and redemption, prophecy and fulfillment, eschatology, Trinity, providence, sovereignty, etc.
I think there are some that would maybe say that design and “concatenation of unplanned events” aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m thinking of Simon Conway Morris’ convergent evolution, for instance.
I was just going to reply to Eddie’s last, saying that ‘providence’ deserved emphasis in the current discussion. Providence (and therefore design) and a “concatenation of unplanned events” are mutually exclusive.
That is my point. There is no ‘unplanned’ with respect to God. We cannot deduce from events that are merely physical how God infuses meaning and order into them.
Thanks for the post containing this paragraph, Terrell. It is clear. I more or less take the same approach, and have the same questions, as you do.
As for this final paragraph, I would emphasize my agreement. I don’t doubt the sincerity or faith of the BioLogos leaders, and I don’t doubt that in their scientific fields they are competent. I have no reason to doubt that Dennis Venema is a competent geneticist or that Deb Haarsma is a competent astronomer. What I’ve never been able to figure out is what BioLogos affirms about the relationship of science and theology, or of God and the evolutionary process. As far I can see, they say that they accept standard evolutionary science (exactly the same science maintained by atheists, agnostics, etc.), and that they affirm the truth of the Bible, read in a Protestant evangelical way. But have never understood how the two sets of beliefs are wedded; they seem to be merely held in compartments that don’t touch each other.
Yes, that is a necessary distinction that constantly needs to be re-articulated, because that is not what the unbeliever (or even many Christians) understand. I frequently say that ‘luck’ and ‘coincidence’ are not in my working vocabulary.
A little narrative illustrative of God’s providence and sovereignty in timing and placing working in a personal way, and also on the molecular level:
From an mail to Matt, my pastor, 7/15/17 (Saturday):
*Joy & Strength is a classic daily devotional that my mom, my sister and I used to read regularly. I don’t read it regularly so much any more, but it was within arm’s reach after the busy signal on the phone.
8/1/17. Right radical nephrectomy – only 22 days from phone call to surgery, sooner than I otherwise might have been able to get even a first appointment!
Of course, I have reflected on that verse and its meaning, “‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”
One of the things that power means is the ability not to be afraid. Ever. In ALL circumstances, including sickness and death. “You can’t kill a Christian, all that you can do is change his address.” The most frequent mandate in the Bible is “Don’t be afraid” or one of its several variations – “Be anxious for nothing”, “Fret not”, and others. So it is the power to obey that mandate, and the power to obey it gladly. It means to be glad and cheerful no matter what the circumstances, even cancer. Father is in control and whatever he does is good for both of us. The doctor and his office and nursing staff and the hospital have never had a more cheerful nephrectomy patient.
Studying a little further, I discovered that the “rest” is to rest as in a dwelling. So that means that the power is the strength of God over me as a strong shelter.
As I quipped on Facebook, “My only complaint about my recent surgery to remove a kidney was that, while he was in there moving furniture around to gain access, he failed to leave me with six-pack abs. THAT was a total failure! ”
A kind of funny and a co-instance footnote to the kidney account, showing that I was being taken care of in another way, too:
My recovery at home was so free of pain that I did not take ANY of the prescribed analgesic, Norco 10mg, an opioid. I was distinctly uncomfortable more than once, but never in severe pain at all, so that extra-strength Tylenol was all that I ever took. (I did look up the street value of the Norco, though, both here and in Omaha. )
But three months later, the week of Thanksgiving, I caught a relatively bad cold. I have had worse coughs, in that they were deeper and harder coughs, but I had never before had a cough like the one with this cold – I just could not stop coughing. I was coughing continuously and cough drops were not helping at all. I knew I needed a heavy duty cough suppressant if I going to get any sleep, and we did not have any codeine cough syrup. It was Wednesday night before Thanksgiving about 10:30, and there would have been easy way to get any.
I knew I had the Norco, so I looked on online for what the codeine content of a prescription cough syrup was, and it was exactly the same as the Norco, 10mg! So I was able to sleep, and was thankful!
Well, that depends on why Conway Morris thinks convergence happens, doesn’t it? I can imagine formulating convergence in a way that it’s merely an interesting “spandrel” that is bound to emerge now and then, as a by-product of a process that has no design in mind, or I can imagine formulating it in a way that it is intended by the setup of the system from the get-go.
Probably Dawkins acknowledges that the phenomenon called “convergence” happens, but I doubt he thinks it is due to any design. Does Conway Morris think it is due to design? if he does, by all means recommend some passages that I can read from his work; I’m always interested in new formulations of the design notion.
In my view, BioLogos/EC are very similar to @swamidass and the “confessing scientist”. I think part of the problem is that for BioLogos, and many (most) Evolutionary Creationists, philosophy just isn’t that important. They are generally scientists who are, first and foremost, concerned about “harmony” between mainstream evolutionary biology and approximately evangelical Christianity. They are not as concerned about Adam & Eve (which is why I think Genealogical Adam would fit comfortably within EC) and Divine Action. Most would say “I believe in God-guided evolution, I don’t know how that all worked out”. I think many EC are open to options. People that are very theological and philosophical will find them frustrating and vague.
And what I’m saying is that scientists do not have the means to determine whether something is truly unplanned or not based on the the presence of the apparent randomness in the system. I believe you agree with me in this. Please correct me if I’m wrong?
If that is the case, then the main problem is just the sloppy way some Christian scientists use the word “random” versus “design”.
So you agree with me that OOL is not a unique case in the question of design; rather, you only focus on it because it happens to be discussed a lot in debates regarding origins, and that it is more tractable to ordinary people. Am I understanding you correctly?
I don’t think this is a trivial point. If you don’t think that OOL or evolution is unique, and that the structure of a hydrogen atom or matter/antimatter asymmetry or any interesting physical phenomena whatsoever are all part of the general “case” for design, then I think most TE/ECs would not have a problem with you.
OK, I agree with you on this, if what you said is true. TE leaders should clarify what they mean by randomness and how it fits with design. Again, I suspect that a huge part of the ambiguity is that ID proponents have irrevocably influenced what the word “Design” suggests whenever it is introduced in such debates. It is perhaps high time for that word to be reclaimed.
That being said, I don’t think that the fault lies with TEs alone. Don’t you agree with me that ID leaders like to pit “design” against “randomness”? Or at least some do. I have lost counted the number of times I’ve heard something along the lines of
We are either the products of blind chance or of purposeful design.
I suspect that a lot of what many TE/ECs want to say is just that the two things above are not necessarily completely opposed to each other.
Further, I said that it seemed to me that the logic of some TE arguments about evolution carried over into their conclusions about the origin of life, so I’m making no artificial separation. Finally, from a theological point of view, I’m just as interested in the question of whether and how God acted in evolution as I am in the question of whether and how he acted in the origin of life. (And when I’ve asked questions about God’s role in evolution, as opposed to origin of life, I’ve got the same theological runaround from most TE leaders.)
The most frequent mandate in the Bible is “Don’t be afraid” or one of its several variations – “Be anxious for nothing”, “Fret not”, and others. So it is the power to obey that mandate, and the power to obey it gladly. It means to be glad and cheerful no matter what the circumstances, even cancer. Father is in control and whatever he does is good for both of us. The doctor and his office and nursing staff and the hospital have never had a more cheerful nephrectomy patient. 
)