It’s too easy to miss all the wonder:
It’s too easy to miss all the wonder:
How is this not evolution?
In a follow-up video… some one will say:
Soooo complex… it has to be God-Guided. And I’ll be okay with that part. But then they will say: … and Science can prove it.
That’s when I’ll barf!
If evolution is a God ordained process why does it need to be God-guided in addition? Seems like unnecessary tweeking.
How is this not awe-inspiring? Who presumes to have the entire answer to how it works?
It certainly is awe-inspiring. And as science finds out how more and more how complex the really process is, the writings in a book by a pre-scientific people get less and less awe-inspiring and relevant.
Wow. That’s a simply stunning minimization. You’re way too predictable, @Patrick .
You aren’t serious, are you?
God-ordained is the phrase that BioLogos settled on in their Mission Statements. I have ZERO control over that process. This is a shame because I think the phrase God-Ordained is fairly weak (which is why it was chosen, no doubt).
I prefer “God-Guided” … because it was as strong a phrase I could use that didn’t get a lot of push back.
If you can come up with a better “God-_____________________ Evolution” phrase, let me know.
Complexity somehow shows that God is not involved? Reminds me of the old poster; an origin of life researcher, in a lab filled with sophisticated equipment, turns to a colleague and says “If I can only synthesize life in the lab, I can prove that no intelligence was required to get it going in the first place!” Talk about excluding the hidden variable in an experiment; all it would amount to is artful mimicry, anyway.
Who said anything about complexity not being an indicator of God’s involvement? If you highlight even just a word from a post, as a quote, it makes it much easier to know to what or to whom you are directing your comments.
This was not in response to you, but to Patrick. Peace.
How about God-absent or God-unnecessary Evolution?
Funny. But don’t quit your “day retirement”…
Complexity is emergent from simple processes.
Why does evolution needs any adjectives in front of it to describe something that is no different from our present understanding of what evolution is?
That’s the point. Our present understanding keeps being upended with increasing complexity, indications that what’s going on is more software than hardware-driven, and that, somehow, a kind of constantly updating information processing and dynamically adaptable multicellular coordinated process ends up prevailing in the face of any number of variables. Sure, that sounds like a description of evolution --but, that’s the other point --description is NOT explanation. So, on the origins question, we must not ignore the role of information and its teleological effect.
That’s why I say “evolutionary science”, but science is silent on God and has certainly not demonstrated his absence of evolution, nor has it show his presence.
Because Evolution without qualifiers usually intends the Neo-Darwinism formulation of Evolution.
But BioLogos, promoting a THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT, has added God to Evolution.
So, unless you think Darwin taught Evolution run by God… there HAS to be qualifiers added.
@swamidass, if science cannot detect God, then we are obviously not presenting Science all by itself.
We are presenting a theological construct that INCLUDES Science… but the hybrid combination moves our discussions into a Non-Science category.
This is as you/I intended.
Any honest investigation of the phenomena which posits mere mechanism will be overwhelmed with the inexplicable. That’s okay; keep at it. It’s just that, at some point you get moved beyond mere mechanism into wonder at the ongoing display around you. It’s too easy to miss the forest for the particles of soil.
So I’m assuming this isn’t directed at me … because you would have explained your references if I was the intended audience.