Why Wouldn't God be Free to Tweak a God-Ordained Process?

I never said anything about mutations having to be genuinely random. Please show where I said any such thing.

1 Like

No doubt there are various interpretations of “a Randomizing God”—but I have no problems with the idea of God using random processes in his creation. So I’m a Christian who is fine with random processes, having noticed them mentioned long ago in the Bible itself.

@AllenWitmerMiller:

So help me out then… where does the Bible mention random processes?

@T_aquaticus

Evolution skeptics assume the worst, unless you make it painfully obvious. And about 2 or 3 months ago, you stopped making it painfully obvious.

I will address the false assumptions when they are brought forward. I just don’t feel the need to give a long explanation of randomness within science in every post that I make. You will also note that I wrote several long posts in a thread I started myself just last week.

I think you are being way too sensitive on this issue.

1 Like

The popular classics include:

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord”—Prov. 16:30

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care” —Matt. 10:29

Of course, today we can distinguish the type of “randomness” in a coin flip versus the decay of an individual radioisotope atom, but we don’t expect the Bible to focus on such finer points. Nevertheless, the sovereignty of God in the scriptures is presented alongside freewill in humans with no thought of conflict—and there is also no necessary contradiction between that divine sovereignty and the randomness present in nature (which has sometimes been dubbed a kind of freewill of matter itself.)

I recall a number of Biologos essays and forum threads exploring this topic. Biologist-theologian Arthur Peacocke has also written on this topic, though I’ve not read them in quite some time so I don’t think I can summarize his arguments.

@AllenWitmerMiller

These verses you cite are the ones I use to prove nothing is random to God. So I’m not sure I understand how you think they show the opposite.

I do not make the claim that they show the opposite. Both ancient Hebrew culture and modern English approach the idea of randomness from a human perspective, not God’s perspective. So, that is how Christians can speak of random processes existing and yet God is sovereign over them all. If God’s sovereignty is absolute, there is obviously no “unpredictability” of anything within the mind of God. Yet, because that mind of God is observable/unknowable by humans, we can only speak of randomness from our own limited frame of reference. The English word (and the concept) doesn’t go away just because God does not lack knowledge of the outcome of such processes.

Combine that with God’s active involvement in all of creation, and you might begin to appreciate the immanence and creativity available to the also sovereign and transcendent God.

@AllenWitmerMiller,

Agreed!

But it doesn’t escape my notice that if I had not asked my follow-up question, I wouldn’t have realized that your earlier posting was an assertion of agreement with me about the lack of randomness to God…

And that if I could make a mistake in your meaning, then certainly anti-Evolutionary voices would most likely make the same mistake in interpreting your words.

1 Like

You are probably quite right about that, George. The topic of randomness and how Christians regard randomness can be an ambiguous and confusing one. I suppose I approach this topic differently on an “upscale” (?!) forum like this one versus some of the typical free-for-all, all-comers forums throughout the Internet (where I would use greater care, if I bothered to post there at all!)

2 Likes

@T_aquaticus,

Okay … Let’s put the shoe on the other foot.

Let’s say you were developing an academic exercise that allowed Theists to tolerate atheist and agnostic positions with greater acceptance and tolerance.

And you set up a blog to receive input on this issue and related concepts.

But you also had plenty of visitors by people Atheists who don’t want to even consider watering down their position … and visitors by Christians who think any concession to atheists is rank heresy.

And, not surprisingly, in between your various postings about tolerance and acceptance, the two sides were constantly disputing how everyone is going to be RUINT (!! < important neologism in the vocabulary of any self-respecting citizen of rural Georgia!) … if we don’t maintain firm and clear separations between Atheists and Theists!

What would you do about that dilemma?

I would let people freely speak and describe what they really believe. I wouldn’t be constantly telling them to repeat positions that they have have spelled out many, many times in the past. If people can’t stand reading posts written by people who have different views than there own then the blog/forum may not be the best place for them.

1 Like

@gbrooks9 stop picking on atheists. You are labeling us and trying to belittle us. One third of the US population are Nones - get use to it.

@T_aquaticus,

The problem is not people speaking their mind.

The problem is the constant loop of a “polarizing” topic that is virtually irrelevant to Genealogical Adam - - which behavioral scientists can tell us foment a degradation of trust in, and cooperation with, the opposing team.

If we had “Design Arguments” in a sound proof room - - but with an UNLOCKED DOOR that anyone could enter whenever they want - - we would have the best of all possible worlds.

But right now, the room is not sound proof, and it is not comprehensive. A knock-down dispute over Design erupts at any time, in any category (with the one proviso that we do add a “Design Tag” to it, if you remember to) - - and what’s more, all of these disputes are flagged/broadcast to the entire list (with every new response), so there is virtually no way for someone to not be drawn in (once again, and with never ending futility) on what are essentially metaphysical issues which divide Creationists from Evolutionists … instead of “uniting” the two sides more closely together per Joshua’s inspirational work.

@T_aquaticus, please note: if Design Disputes (and Randomness) were confined to the sound proof room with an UNLOCKED door, you could write anything you wanted about Design with as little or as much qualifying narrative as you like.

@swamidass and @T_aquaticus:

Imagine a world…

Imagine a world where Islamic and Orthodox clergy served on the same task force to create greater toleration and unity between the religious instructors of both faiths.

But the internal WIFI broadcast system in the building in which they all met and worked was constantly texting out status reports on community police reports on the latest abuses and provocations by members of each religion against members of the opposing religion.

Go ahead and tell me how well that would work…

@swamidass:

That’s ridiculous. I am pointing out that the constant shriek of Atheists vs. Creationists makes Joshua’s job harder, not easier.

I think we all “got it” a few years ago … Atheists think religious ideas are unacceptable. And Creationists think Evolution is an Atheist plot. We all got it. We all have the T-shirts that go with the issue. < yawn >

What would degrade trust is people not speaking their mind. That’s what politicians do.

Joshua’s work can’t unite the Genealogical Adam group and the Young Earth Creationist group.

2 Likes

@T_aquaticus

I don’t mean a “perfect” unity… I"m talking about a “closer harmonization”… which is the inevitable result of having Creationist accept SOME Evolution, and having Evolutionists accept SOME Creationism.

This is a brand new topic… worthy of some peaceful and calm deliberations.

What you want everyone to listen to, without any convenient way to moderate, is something that has divided Creationists and Evolutionists for generations… and which is hardly news. And which would STILL be available for those interested - - in a sound proof UNLOCKED room.

@gbrooks9 What you fail to accept is that evolution is neutral on questions of faith. NEUTRAL.
Creationists are not neutral on questions of faith. So evolution and creationism (ID, TE, EC, OEC, YEC) can’t be “harmonized”. Evolution is accepted by most Christians. Evolutionary science is practiced and advanced by scientists some who are Christian and some who are not.