[_ Old Earth _] Evolution / Creation / Intelligent design

[Barbarian]

From a skeptic's point of view it always seemed to me that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were different stories, and that rather than go through the mental gymnastics involved in trying to reconcile them we should accept that the final redactor, because he included both, wasn't hung up on the literal truth of either. It would be great to hear your thoughts from a Christian point of view. Thanks.

Once you realize they aren't literal history, but (as St. Augustine wrote) categories of creation, there isn't anything to reconcile. Adam and Eve can be real people (and I believe they were) without Genesis being about literal seven-day creation.

 

[truthlover]

Barbarian, you claim:


"Hypotheses must be testable. And the supernatural is not testable."

Why do you think this is true? Do you accept hypothetico-deductive science as science? In that methodology, hypotheses are not tested. Predictions, deductions from hypotheses, are tested, and hypotheses that generate confirmed predictions regarded as more plausible.

Meanwhile, I'm not clear what "supernatural" means. It cannot refer to God, because He explicitly says for us to "test Me now in this." (Malachi 3:10). Also, Jesus invited Thomas to test the truth of His resurrection. God being God, if He says that we can do little experiments to prove Him, well, then He can be the subject of our science. It's up to Him. And He has submitted to many prayer experiments, and titheing experiments. Jesus also invited some to believe Him for the works that He did.

The teaching of evolution is the most easily documented stumbling block to faith that I know of. It corrupts both the teaching of science, and the position of faith. Many strive mightily to not let their taxes go for abortion, but cheerfully contribute to putting this stumbling block before little ones that come to the schools loving Jesus. And leave forgetting Him. Jesus gave severe warnings about this. So, I work hard to get this right

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hypotheses must be testable. And the supernatural is not testable.

Why do you think this is true?

Because if we can't test a hypothesis, science has no way of determining whether it is true or not.

Do you accept hypothetico-deductive science as science?

Science is inductive. We take particulars, and from that evidence, infer the rules. Deduction is possible when you know all the rules and can extend them to particulars.

Meanwhile, I'm not clear what "supernatural" means. It cannot refer to God, because He explicitly says for us to "test Me now in this." (Malachi 3:10).

You are using "test" in a non-scientific way. It means something very specific in science, which is limited to the physical universe. Supernatural is that which is not of the physical universe.

Also, Jesus invited Thomas to test the truth of His resurrection. God being God, if He says that we can do little experiments to prove Him, well, then He can be the subject of our science.

If He wished, He could make Himself accessible to testing. He made an exception for His followers for a time, for example. But that no longer the case.

It's up to Him. And He has submitted to many prayer experiments, and titheing experiments. Jesus also invited some to believe Him for the works that He did.

It is blasphemous to test God that way.

The teaching of evolution is the most easily documented stumbling block to faith that I know of.

This is quite a different claim. Whether it is a stumbling block or not, has nothing to do with it's truth. But you're wrong about that, too. Far more people have lost their faith after being raised as creationists, and then finding out about evolution.

Let God be God and accept it His way.

 

[truthlover]

Barbarian,

While induction was the way early scientists worked, interest in what could not be seen led scientists, especially physicists and chemists, to develope a method called hypothetico-deductive. Here we build a model of what we think the truth of the unseen but interesting world might, sorta, look like. When this model is described mathematically, predicted outcomes of experiments can be deduced. These predictions are then tested. As experiments fail to confirm predictions, models are changed and improved. Eventually models that are quite dependable in making true but surprising (non-inductive) predictions are produced.

Almost all of the benefits of modern science in our lives today have come from this form of science.

Now what I find most interesting is this: Faith in the scriptures is defined as "evidence of things not seen." This is quite close to a definition of H-D science. Moreover, the alternative definition is "substance of things hoped for." This is very close to the definition of applied science, where basic "evidence of things not seen" is used to help us achieve things that we hope for.

I've been praying for understanding why, with so much "church" around, the gates of Hell keep prevailing. I hate evil, and want to see it shut down. The answer I got was Prov 2:12, where the first step in the way of evil is the perversion of words. Since faith is so critical to holiness, the evil one has perverted its meaning in our minds, or tried to. The result is that we miss the close similarity between faith and H-D science! Faith is not dogmatic opinion, don't you agree? Neither is science.

 

[Barbarian]

While induction was the way early scientists worked, interest in what could not be seen led scientists, especially physicists and chemists, to develope a method called hypothetico-deductive. Here we build a model of what we think the truth of the unseen but interesting world might, sorta, look like.

Sounds like induction, so far.

When this model is described mathematically, predicted outcomes of experiments can be deduced.

Hypothesized. Predictions are hypotheses. When they are confirmed, they are theories.

These predictions are then tested. As experiments fail to confirm predictions, models are changed and improved.

Sounds like induction to me. Deduction is when you know the rules, and deduce particulars from those. Induction is when you don't know the big picture, and infer what it is, from the evidence.

Almost all of the benefits of modern science in our lives today have come from this form of science.

Name something.

Now what I find most interesting is this: Faith in the scriptures is defined as "evidence of things not seen." This is quite close to a definition of H-D science.

Nope. Science can only deal in the physical world.

I've been praying for understanding why, with so much "church" around, the gates of Hell keep prevailing.

Possibly because so many people get creative with the Message. It's not complex, and it's not about science.

 

[Physicist]

At the beginning of the Christian era, St. Augustine demonstrated that a literal Genesis could not be reconciled with Christian belief. Christians don't have to do anything but be true to their faith to realize that YE creationism is not true.

I agree completely. I think that too many fundamentalist Christians fail to realize that the anti-science approach consistent with YEC is a relatively new phenomena and not necessary for Christian belief. I think they are committing a logical error by trying to fit religion into science. (There are counterparts who commit the reverse fallacy).

 

[Physicist]

Physicist,

Perhaps you are aware of the scientific method called "strong inference." In this method, two competing theories that explain some observation are pitted against each other, and each is challenged to make predictions that are opposite those of the competing theory. Then, further observations are made to see which predictions are confirmed.

So, we begin with the inductive hypothesis that biological diversity was created by God applying artificial selection (and now, genetic engineering) to nature. But, Darwin also proposes that the selection and genetic change were only natural, uninfluenced by any willful agent, including God.

What predictions can be deduced from both theories, that are different? Has this been done? To be sure, we see selection here and there, but was the selection uninfluenced by God's intervention? What does natural selection predict that is different from artificial selection? (How many generations needed to accomplish a change?)

The Darwin's finches are a particularly embarressing example for Darwin, for God has gone out of His way to point out that He is "watching" the selection process in sparrows.

In the absence of strong inference testing, Occham's razor advises us to prefer the inductively reasonable hypothesis. Natural selection, the hypothesis that no higher, willful being has influenced the selective process is a difficult theory to prove, anyway.

Let me see if I can use your reasoning on a non-biological phenomena. We observe that objects with mass attract each other. Consider two competing theories. We have Einstein's Theory of Relativity that says massive objects cause space-time curvature and the degree of curvature can be mathematically calculated. It also predicts that non-massive objects like light will be deflected by massive objects and this prediction has been confirmed. Notice that no supernatural forces are required.

Consider Physicist's competing hypothesis. Gravity is caused by invisible demons that push objects together so that they exactly match the movements described by Einstein's Theory. Special demons bend light rays. Now, which model is most satisfactory by Occam's razor?

Back to the biological case. Natural selection makes numerrous predictions that follow logically from the theory. Species that are closer to each other share more genetic material. Human genome is closer to the chimpanzee genome than either are to the turnip. The distance in separation of the genomes is a function of time of separation from a common ancestor, as found in the fossil record, and the degree of changes in the environment. Observation confirms these predictions. Also Darwin's theory says that when natural selection for a trait is no longer a factor in survival, the property will degenerate by random mutation. Think blind insects in caves.

Now consider your competing hypothesis. An invisible being makes sure that only certain individuals of species are allowed to reproduce so that the end result exactly mimics that predicted by natural selection.

Which do you think is the more plausible hypothesis?

 

[truthlover]

Physicist,
Here's the end of your comment. You wonder,

"Now consider your competing hypothesis. An invisible being makes sure that only certain individuals of species are allowed to reproduce so that the end result exactly mimics that predicted by natural selection. "

Actually, I wonder if the end result exactly mimics that predicted by natural selection. But, supposing that they do, they why would we introduce natural selection into a science that has already agreed that there is a higher being who engages in artificial selection whereever He can? That artificial selection, widely observed, is not a sufficient hypothesis? If you cannot tell the difference, how would you know which is operating?

Here's the subjective trap. I'd like to believe that genetically bred and selected crops came into being through natural selection, because then I would owe no royalties to those who did the work of producing such species.

I look at a robin preying on an earthworm, and consider what is in the epistemology of the earthworm. If I were such an earthworm, what do I think I would be thinking about what is happening? Nor does the robin even know I am watching and thinking about it. So, if this is all happening in the world that I observe, what about me? Is it reasonable to suppose that I am in the same situation as the robin or earthworm? Why Not? There is probably someone watching me. Maybe somebody trying to pull me out of my earth-home. Or wanting to. The world I see is full of such. And we humans domesticate as much as we can, so the idea that beings that look at me the same way I look at earthworms is, well, inductive, isn't it?

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, I wonder if the end result exactly mimics that predicted by natural selection.

It does, and the first significant evidence for this was found by Linnaeus, a creationist. His binomial nomenclature only works because living things form a nested hierarchy of groups, which only happens by common descent.

But, supposing that they do, they why would we introduce natural selection into a science that has already agreed that there is a higher being who engages in artificial selection whereever He can?

Science can't talk about God or anything not of the physical world. The reason we accept natural selection is that observation has confirmed it is the force behind most evolutionary processes.

That artificial selection, widely observed, is not a sufficient hypothesis? If you cannot tell the difference, how would you know which is operating?

We can go and observe. And it's natural selection.

Here's the subjective trap. I'd like to believe that genetically bred and selected crops came into being through natural selection, because then I would owe no royalties to those who did the work of producing such species.

Aside from the fact that we can observe them being artificially selected, there's a more basic problem. You see, they are evolved toward a form that is not consistent with survival in the wild. They are evolved toward a form that is beneficial to man, but not to the species. And that never happens in natural selection.

I look at a robin preying on an earthworm, and consider what is in the epistemology of the earthworm. If I were such an earthworm, what do I think I would be thinking about what is happening? Nor does the robin even know I am watching and thinking about it. So, if this is all happening in the world that I observe, what about me? Is it reasonable to suppose that I am in the same situation as the robin or earthworm? Why Not? There is probably someone watching me. Maybe somebody trying to pull me out of my earth-home. Or wanting to. The world I see is full of such. And we humans domesticate as much as we can, so the idea that beings that look at me the same way I look at earthworms is, well, inductive, isn't it?

If you have a point, it's well-hidden.

 

[truthlover]

Barbarian,

Given your definition of science, basically inductive, I agree with your conclusions. God, by definition, "Conceals a matter." and says that He is invisible. I have found a science of the invisible, ans asked God whether He would let His presence br explored by that science. He has agreed, and shown me lots of areas (prayer studies, Bible Codes) where what we can see confirms what we suspect about what we cannot see.

Now, I suspect that diversity in dogs (artificially selected) has been generated much faster than might be produced by "natural selection." Hence, the apparent slow rate of development of "wild" diversity would support the natural selection argument. But, then there are the various fossil "explosions" where wild diversity has apparently proceeded at rates that are more consistent with an artificial selection idea.

The key, I believe, is the call of scriptures to be prophetic, to ask God Himself what He did. I know that if someone claimed to have created everything, and wanted credit for it, and if there was an argument that left Him out of any meaningful involvement, and if that Person invited interviews, I would go for an interview, so that they could have their say. He told me that He meddled with both the DNA and the fitness parameters, in the creation of biological diversity.

What did He tell you?

 

[Physicist]

Barbarian,

Given your definition of science, basically inductive, I agree with your conclusions. God, by definition, "Conceals a matter." and says that He is invisible. I have found a science of the invisible, ans asked God whether He would let His presence br explored by that science. He has agreed, and shown me lots of areas (prayer studies, Bible Codes) where what we can see confirms what we suspect about what we cannot see.

You conduct double-blind experiments of God's influence? How?

Anecdotal stories are not scientific evidence. Otherwise, we would have to accept the healing power of crystals or Dianetics.

Now, I suspect that diversity in dogs (artificially selected) has been generated much faster than might be produced by "natural selection." Hence, the apparent slow rate of development of "wild" diversity would support the natural selection argument. But, then there are the various fossil "explosions" where wild diversity has apparently proceeded at rates that are more consistent with an artificial selection idea.

The 'fossil explosions' were still over a much longer time frame than dog breeding.

The key, I believe, is the call of scriptures to be prophetic, to ask God Himself what He did. I know that if someone claimed to have created everything, and wanted credit for it, and if there was an argument that left Him out of any meaningful involvement, and if that Person invited interviews, I would go for an interview, so that they could have their say. He told me that He meddled with both the DNA and the fitness parameters, in the creation of biological diversity.

What did He tell you?

I don't see anywhere in the Biblical text where God talks about DNA or evolution. I am not saying that he did not interfere as you suggest. There is no way to test this and using the Bible as a reference for it would probably take some imaginative interpretation..

 

[truthlover]

Physicist askc,

[You conduct double-blind experiments of God's influence? How?"


Frank Loehr set up trays of germinating seedlings, one of which was watered from a jar of bottled water that had been prayed for previously, the other from an unprayed for bottle. The jars were labelled, but the waterer did not know which jar had been prayed for. The seeds watered from the prayed for bottle grew significantly (statistical sense!) better, as measured by someone who also did not know which tray had been prayed for. Seed manufacturers heard about this, confirmed it, and got him to test praying for the seeds themselves. This did not work. The idiosyncratic difference is consistent with the influence of a person not all that enamored of the love of money.

[color=#FF0080"The 'fossil explosions' were still over a much longer time frame than dog breeding."

][/color]

But a thousand years, etc, etc. But as I've said, this person supposedly engaged in artificial selection is interested in being interviewed directly on the matter. The science is good for encourageing setting up the interview.

I don't see anywhere in the Biblical text where God talks about DNA or evolution. I am not saying that he did not interfere as you suggest. There is no way to test this and using the Bible as a reference for it would probably take some imaginative interpretation..

Scripture declares itself to be useful for establiching contact with God or Jesus Himself, and as a topic for further converstaion. "His sheep hear His voice." Using scripture as a tree of knowledge of good and evil is fatal.

 

[truthlover]

Barbarian.

By the way, I've prayed about your claim that YE creationists are the real cause of the loss of faith of so many learning about evolution, and He said that you were hearing Him correctly. While forgetting God in the teaching of evolution is sin, and pays certain wages of death, teaching religious dogma, discouraging little ones wno love Jesus from trying to "hear His voice," is sin that pays out death at a mush higher pay grade.

Thanks for the lead.

 

[Barbarian]

Forgetting God in anything is a sin. We should always be mindful of His presence in all things.

 

[truthlover]

Amen!

 

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian.

By the way, I've prayed about your claim that YE creationists are the real cause of the loss of faith of so many learning about evolution, and He said that you were hearing Him correctly.

Thanks for the lead.

So you're a prophet, TL? ;)

 

[truthlover]

Crying Rock,

Thanks for the leads to those modern bards, reminding us with such inspiration of what God is hoping we'll remember.

I'm a disciple, called to be a teacher, but all can prophesy and hear His voice.

He says to remind you that the seed cast by the wayside gets eaten up by the birds before it can become fruitful. This happens because it was heard without understanding. Understanding of what? Where we are coming from, where we ought to be headed, how we are to walk, what is up against us. Elementary theology. Let us all set our hearts on being fruitful, on seeking after glory, honor, and immortality. In truth. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, the hypocrites. Seek the love of the truth, and the hope that is so evidently in you will keep on growing to faith and then agape love.

But what else can we expect a wannabe teacher to say?

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock,

Thanks for the leads to those modern bards, reminding us with such inspiration of what God is hoping we'll remember.

I'm a disciple, called to be a teacher, but all can prophesy and hear His voice.

He says to remind you that the seed cast by the wayside gets eaten up by the birds before it can become fruitful. This happens because it was heard without understanding. Understanding of what? Where we are coming from, where we ought to be headed, how we are to walk, what is up against us. Elementary theology. Let us all set our hearts on being fruitful, on seeking after glory, honor, and immortality. In truth. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, the hypocrites. Seek the love of the truth, and the hope that is so evidently in you will keep on growing to faith and then agape love.

But what else can we expect a wannabe teacher to say?

I appreciate your 'spirituality', and I love God with all my heart, but this a science forum.

I'm pretty sure there is a theology forum on the board:

viewforum.php?f=14

 

[Barbarian]

Truth cannot contradict truth. Fact is, YE creationism is a stumbling block to new Christians and a make of atheists among young Christians.

And it's not even Biblical. Nothing good can come from that which is not true.

 

[truthlover]

Crying rock,

You comment,
I appreciate your 'spirituality', and I love God with all my heart, but this a science forum.

I'm pretty sure there is a theology forum on the board:


Actually, I am a professional scientist trying to follow up on William James who in 1902 introduced "Scientific Theology." I discovered that the definitions of faith and science were almost identical, and that the enemies of faith and science had twisted the meanings of both words in such a way that the real enemy of our life, dogmatic opinionation, was admitted into our thinking. Thus we were perishing for a lack of knowledge, because we neglected the love of truth, the rules for knowing what is true. We got bad science and dead faith.

Surely this is a forum to share such insights? And surely, the place of understanding in theology is best addressed in a forum where those come who are hopeful to see science effective in the service of manifesting the power of the christ?