(I’m a God-is-atemporal or a God-is-omnitemporal Calvinist. 
)
1 Like
I believe that God reveals Himself to me through science. I believe that science reflects a little bit of the infinite depths of the creativity and rationality of God’s Mind. As @DaleCutler said, I am not a robot doing science. For example, I thank God for the fact that He has created molecules which make it possible for humans to measure the roundness of the electron very precisely.
One needs to be careful here. Science has often changed and evolved, but it does not do so randomly. For the most part, scientists build upon the work of their predecessors. Old interpretations of data are often subsumed into newer ones which have a wider scope. It is similar to how theology itself evolves, but orthodox theology has always affirmed historical convictions such as those expressed in ancient creeds. We should never marry our theology too closely to the latest science, but we also cannot just ignore the weight of cumulative scientific evidence in the hopes that it will be completely overturned or reinterpreted later.
YES! I’m glad we are in agreement about this.
My personal outlook is that these attempts to explain the beauty of music, for example, in terms of neuroscience, are not necessarily wrong. It’s just that they do not necessarily do away with the need for a divine explanation as well.
2 Likes
Agreed. They necessarily do not do away with the need for a divine explanation as well.
1 Like
Do they? Let me quote an argument against ID by a Christian (I am assuming he is a TE).
My observation is that in the biological realm, there are ubiquitous examples of the generation of new functional information without the involvement of an intelligent mind. Every act of reproduction involves the rearrangement or modification, whether through sexual crossover or mutations, of the genetic base pairs in the genome. In all cases, this amounts to new functional information whether infinitesimally new or significantly different. The only intelligence that might be observed is that from mate selection in higher organisms but no direct modification, notwithstanding the current promise of such gene-editing ability in the future. Specific examples of new information in biology are provided in the informative series of 14 blog-posts by Dennis Venema. Every event of reproduction therefore seems to be a counterexample that falsifies the inductive logic of the assertion that all functional information requires an intelligent mind.
My proposal is that functional information is connected to intelligence through abstract relationships in the determination of functionality. One of the most important defining hallmarks of intelligence is the ability for abstract reasoning. Therefore, whenever the criterion for functionality involves an abstract relationship, intelligence is necessarily involved. This applies to all of the experiences to which Meyer and other advocates appeal. However, biological systems do not require any abstract relationship for determining what information is functional. The criterion for functionality of any organism is to survive and be successful in reproduction. This is an existential criterion and no abstract relationship is involved. It cannot therefore be inferred that intelligence is required for biological functional information.
To repeat this conclusion in different terms, it is the determination of functionality that indicates whether or not intelligence is required. If information is determined to be functional or not through an abstract relationship, then intelligence is required. If no abstract connection is needed to determine functionality, then it cannot be asserted that an intelligent mind must have been involved, though it might have been.
I have highlighted three statements which I find intriguing-
- The definitive statement that new functional information can arise in biology without the involvement of an intelligent mind (i.e atleast some parts of biology did not involve design by God or anyone). The example here is reproduction.
- The involvement of an intelligence need not be inferred to explain biological systems. I.e God is not required to explain how designed biology looks
- He does not rule out the possibility that God could be involved, though they don’t need God to explain how the information arose.
https://network.asa3.org/blogpost/1355195/306983/Theistic-Evolution-Functional-Information-ASA-talk
Perhaps this is what @Eddie is referring to.
To me, this is the same as saying nature is so awesome because of a combination of chance/the necessity to survive. God might have been involved… but nothing about his intelligence can be inferred from all the awesome “design” like stuff we find in the world.
1 Like
As Josh alludes to here, my increasing reluctance to identify with EC or TE is driven by my increasing knowledge of all the extra-intellectual, context-dependent baggage that comes with it, part of it which is expressed in @Eddie’s complaints about the rhetoric of some TE leaders, and their lack of comfort in speculating about how God’s design and providence fit with science.
I definitely do not like the theistic evolutionist label, as it seems to focus on evolution more than the theistic part. Evolutionary creationism is a little bit better (though still with some baggage), and I might refer to my views as close to EC for practical ease. We really need a new term to describe “Christians who affirm evolutionary science”…
1 Like
That may be so when the functionality is physical, but we are also talking about functionalities that are more or less – mostly less – materialistic, like ideation.
Precisely. Buts it’s a revelation about a who (i.e God) to you.
You cannot equate general revelation to a set of facts/inferences obtained through the scientific method. Because it is about a what (i.e nature) and says nothing about God in itself.
The point I am making is that the theological implications of science needs to be evaluated so that it’s clear what part of the scientific interpretation is directly related to actual data and what part stems from the world view of scientists.
1 Like
I’m not equating it to that. (If I gave the impression that I did, I would clarify that I did not mean to say that.) I think science is a subset of general revelation.
So you cannot deduce anything about a person based on their actions and what they have made? I disagree.
Only scientists are qualified to judge whether their interpretations of data are legitimate. This is why we need more trained, earnest, orthodox Christian scientists who are also comfortable with discussing the relationship between science and theology. I’m sorry, but I cannot allow a theological outlook which fundamentally distrusts science as it is practiced today. Reading the writings of many theologians who try to separate “data” and “interpretation” only reveals their naivete about science as it is actually practiced and talked about by scientists in the scientific community.
1 Like
Do I hear a delayed echo.
1 Like
I don’t know about whether you can infer God’s “intelligence” from nature…I’m not even sure that “intelligence” is the right word to describe the creative power of God’s mind. It seems like a misapplication of terms. What I can say, though, that the fact that regular, ordered phenomena like reproduction that can produce new functional information could be evidence that a divine Mind is needed to set up and sustain that regularity. Nothing else from that Randy Isaac quote troubles me - I do not feel the need to invoke functional information in biology to deduce the providence of God. If the explanation for the generation of functional information is not much different than the explanation for why planets stay in orbit, that does not diminish the role of God at all.
1 Like
I think I would rather see Evolutionary Creationism “redeemed” by seeing more people who are less deistic in their outlook take on the label to fill out the “tent”. The term is still relatively new, so I think there’s time. If I look at the “landscape”, the problem as I see it is that scholars in theologically conservative contexts were getting fired or severely censured for daring to “affirm” evolution. That left an intellectual hole in EC/TE. I think that is now starting to get filled in by people like Josh (again, not putting him in that camp) who seem to want to retain traditional doctrine and theology, while also letting science drive science.
2 Likes
(It’s awfully hard to change the trajectory of the meaning of a term or its already formed association with current particulars once started.)
1 Like
It has nothing to do with general revelation… because it has nothing to do with God.
I am not denigrating Science here. Just making it clear that Science is not in the business of understanding God’s nature through the study of nature.
You and I can… but Science as discipline refuses to do anything of that sort when it comes to God. It studiously avoids any mention or need for God in its explanations
We have two camps of scientists who do this… both the ID as well as the TE camp. The interesting part is that both are at loggerheads on how to interpret the data.
I am not recommending an attitude that suspicious of Science. Just acknowledging that Science and Scientists are not qualified to make judgements about God because that’s not their field of investigation. So I look at science as an auxiliary field and take any philosophical/theological claims by scientists skeptically.
That may be, but I saw BioLogos and people like Falk, Lamoureux, and Collins do a lot of good to get people to understand that it wasn’t just atheists and theological liberals that could affirm evolution. Maybe they went too far towards that end to make it happen (throwing out historical Adam in the process) but I would still maintain that the shift I’m seeing in students is pretty dramatic. Fewer are saying YEC or atheism were the only options they had heard of. More are saying, OK, I don’t know how this works, but I know the core of my faith isn’t threatened by science. I think this allows them to be more free to follow the evidence. I guess I don’t want to lose that over what I see are internal disagreements.
3 Likes
We are now back to MN vs. PN and the distinctions Christians need to make.
1 Like
OK, sure. I think it just semantics. What I mean is that the findings and conclusions of science can spur on a Christian scientist to realize new things about God’s actions in the world. (Whether that has a bearing directly on the “nature” of God is less clear to me.) When said Christian scientist does that, he is not operating as a regular scientist, but as a Christian who is knowledgeable about science. Because of that I still reject your characterization that “science has nothing to do with general revelation”. It has a lot to do with it.
Right, but theologians are also not qualified to make judgments about science. I hope we agree on that one too.
3 Likes
Cool. I have to confess to being fairly provincial in my exposure to current currents. I am mostly sensitized to the significant YEC presence.
I see it as a result of you heeding the witness of the Holy spirit. Science is not necessary for the process… a waterfall could work as well…
Revelation is knowledge that is revealed by God. Science in itself is not a revelation, just as a beautiful waterfall is not a revelation.
I think it’s an important distinction that those who point to the two books idea miss.
Yes… and they are usually not interested. Until scientists make theological claims based on Science. For example -Athiesm.
Or, science itself is a revelation, just like a beautiful waterfall is a revelation. But that was in your meaning, too, wasn’t it.
3 Likes
I’ve continued this discussion here: Is Science Part of General Revelation?