tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post116832312878877551..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Re: according to ID theory is the Designer involved only in the formation of these microscopic structures, or the entire biological world? #2Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-52381869749283707462007-01-16T14:34:00.000+09:002007-01-16T14:34:00.000+09:00Geocreationist
See my "Policies" on my blog's fro...Geocreationist<br /><br />See my "Policies" on my blog's front page:<br /><br />"... Of those comments which do appear, I may not have the time to respond to all (or even most) of them."<br /><br />To which I have now recently added:<br /><br />"I no longer have the time or inclination for extended debate, so any response by me will usually be only once to each individual, and then I will let him/her have the last word."<br /><br />You have now had *two* last words, so comments on this particular post are now closed to you.<br /><br />You are however, welcome to comment on other posts on my blog. <br /><br />But then, as I have pointed out previously [e.g. http://tinyurl.com/yn9ynr], they should be comments on *my* posts, not be used mainly as an opportunity for those commenting to disseminate their own views.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-50321136385484429762007-01-16T13:14:00.000+09:002007-01-16T13:14:00.000+09:00I just re-read your response response to me, and t...I just re-read your response response to me, and then my response to you, and fear I unwittingly made one of your points for you.<br /><br />You closed with:<br />>But in my eperience most Deistic/Theistic Evolutionists have *theological* (not scientific) reasons for preferring a God who never supernaturally intervened in life's history. But then is more like a form of Gnosticism (where God is radically distinct from the world), than Biblical Christianity.<br /><br />I just want to clarify that I do not have a core believe that God never supernaturally intervened in life's history. I believe He intervened to get the Jews out of Egypt, and that He made a special garden for Adam and Even, for example. I believe the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was the ultimate divine intervention. Therefore, I have no stake in proving God did or did not actively create things during the Genesis 1 account, though you can probably tell what direction I'm currently leaning.<br /><br />My approach is to simply look at the evidence, and see what story it tells. I looked the science of the earth's beginnings, looked at bible's recording of the earth's beginning, and saw that they line up. Well, what then?<br /><br />It just so happens that the events recorded in the earth are events that do not appear to have required divine intervention, since God divinely created the universe so those events would happen "on their own" eventually.<br /><br />On the other hand, perhaps God ended the meteors earlier than otherwise, and perhaps the rain, too. And perhaps the breaks in the fossil record are there because of explicit creative acts on God's part. I really have no problem with finding out either way, because my point wouldn't change. But if He didn't intervene at those points in time (yet Jesus physically observed His work), then I don't think it makes the result any less intentional on His part.<br /><br />Of course, I suppose I do have one stake in this: if I concluded that God was intervening at those points, I'd have to go rewrite a bunch of blogs! But I will do it if necessary. I'm out to discover the truth... not simply get my own way.<br /><br />BTW, I'm glad I found your blog... a bit verbose sometimes (so am I), but challenging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-6865661206639360162007-01-15T11:15:00.000+09:002007-01-15T11:15:00.000+09:00> I agree with them that in "the standard scientif...> I agree with them that in "the standard scientific" sense of "evolution" it *is* "action without God", i.e. "God had *no part* in this process" (my emphasis)<br /><br />I will accept this definition, for the sake of clarity. Therefore, I will have to restate my position as being indistinguishable from evolution in the strictly scientific sense. However, my position is not that of St. Augustine either.<br /><br />I believe that Jesus was physically and temporally present at creation (Proverbs 8:27), and so was the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2). Furthermore, Jesus was using the Holy Spirit for transport (Psalm 104:3), and so the perspective of hovering was Jesus', too. Therefore, Jesus was present at the very events that left no recording of Him, beyond His obedience to God's creative pronouncements.<br /><br />I believe the conditions of Genesis 1:2 were under dark clouds, in the rain, 3.9 Ga, after the last recorded large meteor strike in the early earth's history. These large strikes were preventing an atmosphere from forming, and hence preventing a well-lit sky. Add to that thick clouds (from vaporizing the ocean), rain (after the temperature lowered enough for the oceans to start reforming), and a dim sun, and the conditions were quite dark (Job 38:9). God then said "Let there be light", and Jesus did: there were no more meteor strikes. The atmosphere began to form, and the sky began to brighten. Jesus had been hovering over an earth rotating beneath Him, and so we have only a rough idea of how long this "day" was from His perspective. But, eventually, Jesus and the Holy Spirit followed the earth into dusk, and the first day was over.<br /><br />I won't go through the entire chronology, but Day 2 was similar. It was still raining, but God said to let the firmament divide the waters below from those above. Eventually, the rain stopped, and Jesus allowed the evening to overtake Him again.<br /><br />What these two days have in common (and the others if we followed them through) is that the events of the days appear to be events that were going to happen anyway... there weren't an endless supply of meteors, so they were going to end anyway. The rain wasn't going to last forever either, and it in fact ended. Yet God made pronouncements relative to physical time, everything created was done through Jesus (John 1:3; Proverbs 8:30), and Jesus was actually there (Proverbs 8:27,28).<br /><br />We seem then to have a paradox, where 1)A temporal creation process is accurately recorded in scripture(to the extent that it is recorded), 2)The physical process is scientifically derivable independent of that scripture, 3)God's presence is not verifiable scientifically, 4)God's presence is insisted upon theologically.<br /><br />One could actually argue that the scientific verification of what God had recorded in scripture is in fact a type of scientific verification of God's presence, given that the scriptures came before the science. But then, God is pretty fond of paradoxes (the Trinity for example), and His attitude is that we simply accept them in faith.<br /><br />Therefore, I differ from St. Augustine, because even while I argue that God set up the universe's physical processes at its creation, so that the universe could mature "naturally", I also argue that the creation Genesis 1 records was 6 literal days (as Genesis defines a day -- sundown followed up sunrise), that those 6 days were witnessed by God's creative agent Jesus, and that the physical events set up 15 billion years ago (approximately) were fulfilled in Jesus' obedience to God starting 3.9 billion years ago.<br /><br />It's like when my boss tells me to write a computer program that does such-and-such (I'm a software engineer by trade). I can write the program, and it's done. However, my obedience is not actually noted on the record until I demo the program for him, and he sees the sequence of steps I put into the program. From the perspective of the program (if it were conscious), there's no evidence of me at all, except for the program itself. Perhaps I cannot call it evolution, but that is why a gave the entire theory a name: <a href=http://www.geocreationism.com>Geocreationism</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-28932547629519505352007-01-14T20:38:00.000+09:002007-01-14T20:38:00.000+09:00Geocreationist
>You began by saying (correctly in...Geocreationist<br /><br />>You began by saying (correctly in my opinion), "It is important to realise that one could remain a "Darwinian Evolutionist" and accept ID, if by "Darwinian Evolutionist" is not meant the denial of design (as in Darwinism)." <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>I have noticed recently that a lot of Christians have a problem with someone arguing that God used evolution, because to them evolution is action without God. <br /><br />I agree with them that in "the standard scientific" sense of "evolution" it *is* "action without God", i.e. "God had *no part* in this process" (my emphasis):<br /><br />"Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory [of evolution] that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," _Scientific American_, February 2002. http://tinyurl.com/y2rdxd) <br /> <br />But in this post I was not talking about "God" but about *ID*. They are *not* the same thing. One could accept ID and not accept there is a God (as agnostic ID leaders Michael Denton and David Berlinski do). Or one could accept there is a God and not accept ID (as some creationists like Ken Ham and Hugh Ross do). Or one could accept a non-Christian deist God on the basis of the evidence for design in molecular machines (as former atheist Antony Flew now does).<br /><br />>I doubt they would find your qualification above very satisfying, and that is unfortunate, for it prevents any further intelligent interchange. Too bad.<br /><br />Agreed that most "Darwinian Evolutionists" would not find accepting design "very satisfying". <br /><br />And as for "further intelligent interchange" in this debate, in my experience of over a decade (1994-2005) of debating all-comers, there is very little of that in this debate.<br /><br />Nevertheless, what I said was *true*. It is a historical *fact* that Darwinian evolution originally had its anti- and pro-design wings (the latter represented by leading scientists Asa Gray, Alfred Wallace and Charles Lyell) but the anti-design wing (represented by Darwin, T.H. Huxley and J.D. Hooker) won and subsequent history has been written by the victors. <br /><br />>My own insight on this seeming redefinition of Evolution (hardly original I'm sure) is that God's perspective is from outside the universe. To Him, a design decision at the beginning of the universe materializes before His very eyes, even while it appears to be 15 billion years later from our perspective. <br /><br />That seems to be a variant of St. Augustine's position:<br /><br />"The act of creation may thus be viewed from two directions, as it were: from the side of the cosmos, and _sub specie aeternitatis_, as the Scholastics would say. According to the first point of view, things are created in temporal sequence: first one thing, then another, and so forth. Let us observe, moreover, that this corresponds to the perspective of the first chapter of _Genesis_, the perspective of the _hexaemeron_ or the `six days.' But let us not fail to observe, too, that in the second chapter one encounters an entirely different outlook: `These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew.' (_Gen_. 2:4-5).35 Now this corresponds to the second point of view. From `the standpoint of eternity' there are no longer six days, but only *one*. On its own ground, so to speak, the work of creation is accomplished in one absolutely simple and indivisible act. As we read in _Ecclesiasticus_ (_Ecclus_. 18:1): _Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul_ ('He that liveth in eternity created all things at once'). ... For as St. Augustine has observed, the metaphysical recognition that `the world was not made in time, but with time' entails the scriptural _omnia simul_ as a logical consequence: `God, therefore, in His unchangeable eternity created simultaneously all things whence times flow...' They were not made in temporal succession, because they were not made in time. Yet, to be sure, created beings come to birth in time: they enter the world, as it were, at some particular moment. Each creature, in its cosmic manifestation, is thus associated with its own spatio-temporal locus: it fits somewhere into the universal network of secondary causes. But yet it is not created by these causes, nor is its being confined to that spatio-temporal locus: for its roots extend beyond the cosmos into the timeless instant of the creative act. That is the veritable `beginning' to which Genesis alludes when it declares: _In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram_. It is `the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb in the ground before it grew.' Let there be no doubt about it: the creature is moreincomparably more!-than its visible manifestation. It does *not* coincide with the phenomenon. Even the tiniest plant that looms for a fortnight and then is seen no more is vaster in its metaphysical roots than the entire cosmos in its visible form: for these roots extend into eternity. And how much more does this apply to man! `Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee.'" (_Jer_. 1:5). (Smith, W., "Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin," Tan: Rockford IL., 1988, pp.17-18. Emphasis original) <br /><br />>So, what looks like a "fire and forget" theory to us is a genuinely active process to God, where His uniquely extra-universal perspective makes Him quite involved in even the most lengthy of processes. <br /><br />The point is that if it "looks like a "fire and forget" theory to us" then that is effectively Naturalistic = Atheistic Evolution,<br /><br />Then problem with that is twofold. First, in my experience of debating all-comers for over a decade (1994-2005), in defending this Deistic/Theistic Evolution theory you would actually have to agree with the atheists against creationist/IDist and defend not Deistic/Theistic Evolution but Naturalistic/*Atheistic* Evolution. <br /><br />Second, your "`fire and forget' theory" would have all the problems that Naturalistic Evolution has. And these are such that even former atheist Antony Flew has now abandoned fully Naturalistic Evolution in favour of God supernaturally intervening to create the first living organism [see part #1 http://tinyurl.com/ycx8t2].<br /><br />>To not acknowledge that, in my opinion, reduces God from the role of "Creator of the universe" to a mere inhabitant.<br /><br />There is no doubt that God *could* have created *solely* through natural processes, if that is what He wanted to do. <br /><br />But the problem with that is also twofold. First why *would* He, when an atheist like Dawkins could then justly claim that it *looked* like Atheistic Evolution in which God played *no* part? As Phillip E. Johnson pointed out, "If God stayed in that realm beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and allowed an apparently blind materialistic evolutionary process to do all the work of creation, then it would have to be said that God furnished us with *a world of excuses for unbelief and idolatry*" (my emphasis):<br /><br />"From a biblical standpoint, however, it is not only the events of salvation history that create difficulties for any compromise with naturalism. One is faced not simply with the details of the Genesis account but with New Testament passages that reflect the fundamental logic of Christianity. For example, the first chapter of Romans tells us that `the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men, who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.' [Romans 1:18-23] That passage does not speak of a nature that merely raises questions that a naturalistic science cannot answer, but of a nature that points directly and unmistakably toward the necessity of a creator. And if nature does no more than raise questions, how can men be blamed for coming to the wrong conclusions about what to worship? If God stayed in that realm beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and allowed an apparently blind materialistic evolutionary process to do all the work of creation, then it would have to be said that God furnished us with a world of excuses for unbelief and idolatry." (Johnson, P.E., "Creator or Blind Watchmaker?" _First Things_, January 1993, p12. http://tinyurl.com/y7qyhx) <br /><br />Second, there always has been problems with the evidence of fully Naturalistic Evolution. The fossil record has always *looked* like God had progressively intervened at strategic points over time, which is in fact the pattern in Genesis 1. Or as the atheist Darwinist Daniel Dennett observed, The first chapter of Genesis describes ... successive waves of Creation": <br /><br />"The first chapter of Genesis describes the successive waves of Creation and ends each with the refrain `and God saw that it was good.'" (Dennett, D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and The Meanings of Life," [1995], Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1996, p.67). <br /><br />That is why Darwin admitted that most of the paleontologists of his day were against his theory and why he had to propose that the fossil record had to be *extremely* imperfect, *far more* imperfect than any paleontologist would grant" (then and now):<br /><br />"That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," Sixth Edition, 1872, Senate: London, Facsimile Edition, 1994, p.409). <br /><br />And things have only got *worse* for Naturalistic Evolution, not better. Apart from the problems of explaining naturalistically the origin of life, as biologist Mark Pagels admitted, the fossil record's pattern of "rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years" is "hauntingly reminiscent of *creation*" (my emphasis):<br /><br />"Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation." (Pagel, M., "Happy accidents?" Review of "The Pattern of Evolution," by Niles Eldredge, W.H. Freeman, 1999. _Nature_, Vol. 25 February 1999, pp.664-665, p.665).<br /><br />But in my eperience most Deistic/Theistic Evolutionists have *theological* (not scientific) reasons for preferring a God who never supernaturally intervened in life's history. But then is more like a form of Gnosticism (where God is radically distinct from the world), than Biblical Christianity.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-85636318252789098802007-01-14T14:19:00.000+09:002007-01-14T14:19:00.000+09:00You began by saying (correctly in my opinion), "It...You began by saying (correctly in my opinion), <i>"It is important to realise that one could remain a "Darwinian Evolutionist" and accept ID, if by "Darwinian Evolutionist" is not meant the denial of design (as in Darwinism)."</i> <br /><br />I have noticed recently that a lot of Christians have a problem with someone arguing that God used evolution, because to them evolution is action without God. I doubt they would find your qualification above very satisfying, and that is unfortunate, for it prevents any further intelligent interchange. Too bad.<br /><br />My own insight on this <a href=http://geocreationism.com/evolution-and-geocreationism/>seeming redefinition of Evolution</a> (hardly original I'm sure) is that God's perspective is from outside the universe. To Him, a design decision at the beginning of the universe materializes before His very eyes, even while it appears to be 15 billion years later from our perspective. So, what looks like a "fire and forget" theory to us is a genuinely active process to God, where His uniquely extra-universal perspective makes Him quite involved in even the most lengthy of processes. To not acknowledge that, in my opinion, reduces God from the role of "Creator of the universe" to a mere inhabitant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1168399327984848392007-01-10T12:22:00.000+09:002007-01-10T12:22:00.000+09:00Openmind>Forgive me if I've misunderstood but to m...Openmind<BR/><BR/>>Forgive me if I've misunderstood but to me it seems you are suggesting that there are some undirected natural processes but that these are a broader different form of design than that described by the theory of Intelligent Design.<BR/><BR/>Correct. That's what my quote of the Dembski painting on canvas analogy made clear. ID is not the *entire* argument from design.<BR/><BR/>>I'm a little confused as to the difference. <BR/><BR/>See above. <BR/><BR/>>What would be acceptable evidence that something had not been designed in this broader sense? <BR/><BR/>See my post on "acceptable evidence" and how for every Darwinist I have ever encountered, *not one* has ever stated up-front what evidence that they would accept for design. <BR/><BR/>It is significant that you (like most if not all Darwinists) dwell on whether it is "acceptable" to admit design, not whether it is *true*.<BR/><BR/>When I was debating on my now- defunct Yahoo list, I used to liken this to the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, who thought that if it could not see what it didn't want to see, then it wasn't there! <BR/><BR/>>How could you tell the difference?<BR/><BR/>If you cannot tell the difference between the design of a canvas a painting is on, and the design of the painting itself, then I cannot help you!<BR/><BR/>>Similarly with Asa Gray saying a variation could be directed or undirected, what would be acceptable evidence to show that God had not intervened in a mutation? Couldn't God intervene and we would never know?<BR/><BR/>See above on "acceptable evidence". <BR/><BR/>Most people have no problem intuitively recognising that, say, the bacterial flagellar rotary motor is designed, but this is *un*-"acceptable evidence" to most (if not all) Darwinists on *philosophical* or indeed *religious* (i.e. anti-God) grounds.<BR/><BR/>As I briefly mentioned on my blog [http://tinyurl.com/y4mrff] and more fully on my Yahoo list [http://tinyurl.com/y2jhkp] in a molecular biology class the lecturer, who had previously announced she was an atheist, put up an overhead of the ATP synthase rotary motor. She stared at it intently for some seconds and then turned to the class and exclaimed, "The bloody thing ROTATES!"<BR/><BR/>Clearly she intuitively recognised it as designed (as would have every student in the class), but her atheist philosophy prevented her from admitting it.<BR/><BR/>As I have previously stated [http://tinyurl.com/yblbsg], my policy is not keep debating in these comments an individual beyond one response, and allow them (you) to have the last word.<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1168382691221997312007-01-10T07:44:00.000+09:002007-01-10T07:44:00.000+09:00Mr Jones Forgive me if I've misunderstood but to m...Mr Jones <BR/><BR/>Forgive me if I've misunderstood but to me it seems you are suggesting that there are some undirected natural processes but that these are a broader different form of design than that described by the theory of Intelligent Design.<BR/><BR/>I'm a little confused as to the difference. What would be acceptable evidence that something had not been designed in this broader sense? How could you tell the difference?<BR/><BR/>Similarly with Asa Gray saying a variation could be directed or undirected, what would be acceptable evidence to show that God had not intervened in a mutation? Couldn't God intervene and we would never know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com