I was under the impression that we were discussing how life evolved after it had basic genetic systems. Is this not the case?
If we are talking about the evolution of tissue differentiation in basal eukaryotes then we are starting with a population that already has all of the necessary genetic mechanisms. Ultimately, we are talking about the evolution of gene cascades and global gene regulators, and I really don’t see how this is a problem for the known mechanisms of evolution.
It’s already a dodge to avoid abiogenetic origins. Saying so might make folks angry, but that doesn’t render the observation invalid. Forest for the trees.
That said, I agree that a conversation on the details of the processes is valuable.
I definitely consider God free to “tweak” a God-ordained process. Yet, as a Molinist, I consider that to be just another way to describe (from a more human observer-perspective) God having chosen the particular reality-path which he willed to be and which we observe. In other words, from a human perspective it may be easier to view it as a “tweaking”—but from God’s perspective outside of the stream of time, he simply willed such events to happen exactly as they did.
With either way of looking at it, God’s will is expressed in his creation.
With God being both immanent and transcendent, it may not even be necessary to try to “resolve” those differing conceptions. God is “beyond and sovereign,” while remaining “responsive and involved.”
I just don’t see how abiogenesis is relevant to the question of how tissue differentiation evolved. If God created a simple RNA replicator that evolved into all of the biodiversity we see today through the mechanisms described by the theory of evolution then the theory of evolution is a valid explanation for how tissue differentiation came about.
If we use DNA testing to establish paternity do we have to prove how life arose billions of years ago in order to trust the results? It seems that there are many questions we can answer with respect to proximal causes without needing to answer questions of ultimate origins.
Natural selection does not operate prior to the existence of a living cell, at least, if not a living organism. It does not operate prebiotically. If you want to locate all that creative potential in the locus of a “designed and implemented” RNA replicator and the “magic” of time alone, go ahead and try. You still haven’t ruled out the necessity of a creative, involved God.
So, let’s keep discussing both the proposed processes, and the forensic evidence for God’s involvement.
In the case of evolving tissue differentiation, you are starting with a relatively advanced eukaryotic population. This would be well after the arrival of biology.
So then, you have now partially answered your own question. Good to agree on something.
This thread started months ago, so it is very possible that I’ve forgotten much of the content—but was anybody trying to use science to somehow “rule out the necessity of a creative, involved God”?
I don’t see how forensic evidence can ever point to anything which can’t be detected and investigated by science—because that transcendent agent or force is, by definition, not a part of the matter-energy universe.
There are plenty of papers out there on the evolution of tissues, if people are interested. Here are just two of them:
Maybe look again at the title of the thread? God is both transendent and immanent, and can’t be simply ruled out “by definition.” You do know that the “Babel Fish Argument” is a joke, right?
The biblical God is not apart from the matter and energy universe, either. It reveals Him; He suffuses and maintains it.
Woops.
It’s a compliment in German… ; )
And now our esteemed host, Gut Morgan.
And our honored guest, Vee Gates! Brought to you by Volkswagen --driving innovation to drive you crazy!
I didn’t say that God was “ruled out”. The definition which I was talking about was the definition of “transcendent”—and it is impossible for science to investigate anything transcendent because the tools and methodologies of science are only effective in dealing with the matter-energy universe.
God’s immanence is not at all in conflict with his transcendence. Meanwhile, there is no scientific instrument or set of laboratory procedures for detecting God’s immanence. That’s why it is outside of the investigatory capabilities of science. It is definitely within the domain of theology and faith. Can God’s immanence be established in the domain of philosophical investigation? That’s yet another question quite separate from the scientific one.
Once again, I’ve not noticed anybody “ruling out” God on this thread. Indeed, a great many of us are Bible-affirming Christ-followers.
I missed that argument in this thread. In any case, it wasn’t me who referred to it.
I don’t know of any Christ-follower here who would disagree with that. But is that revelation of a nature which is indeed subject to scientific investigation (as in the Scientific Method) in such a way that God can be identified as the Creator of that creation? Or does it require other means of investigation? And faith as well?
This aspect of the discussion takes us back into the purview of Intelligent Design Theory—which claims that the Scientific Method can be used to establish that an intelligent agent(s) must be responsible for various observed phenomena (especially, biological phenomena) in the matter-energy world. I have followed ID Theory with great interest for many years but thus far I’ve not been impressed. Nevertheless, I would be delighted to see it succeed in a formal exposition in the peer-reviewed literature to where it establishes the theory within the science academy.
Agreed, and noted.
You cannot expect to tell a Christian that he should be satisfied with a Randomizing God… or whatever it is you are left with.
Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that topic. Thermodynamics and Brownian motion come to mind.
I would say the very same thing about those 2 topics. Why would an Atheist think a Christian requires Brownian movement to be genuinely random… instead of just appearing random?