I should add that, in context, Birkett means that if the observed path of the development of life is gradual or rapid, by mutation or otherwise, selection or otherwise, whatever the conclusion of scientific observation it is not in conflict with a Biblical understanding of the way God works in creation, because God is at work through 'natural processes', though we can not always predict how God will work, because God is God and we are not.

I agree with lots of this, but not (as currently phrased) to your dislike of objectivity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd:
Science and religion are frequently at odds... ...because we are heirs of the Cartesian dualism of the "objective" and the "subjective"...

---

Is the problem when people equate "objective" with "empirically verifiable" ? That there is a distinction between that which is empirically verifiable and that which is not seems obvious. But things which are "subjective" are normally mental phenomena. Christians want to say that although God is unprovable (not empirically verifiable) he is objective (having an existence independent of all human thought) ?

quote:

---

...the Cartesian dualism of "objective" and "subjective", of "fact" and "value", was just so much imaginative fancy... ...because we now realize that there are no uninterpreted data, that merely deciding what counts as data ("facts") is a matter of interpretation

---

Not convinced. The realm of objective fact may be a little fuzzy around the edges, but that doesn't mean that there is not a useful distinction (between objective and subjective) to be made.

quote:

---

to restore science and religion to their proper places in human endeavor.

---

Amen to that.

quote:

---

...the Cartesian dualism of "objective" and "subjective", of "fact" and "value", was just so much imaginative fancy... ...because we now realize that there are no uninterpreted data, that merely deciding what counts as data ("facts") is a matter of interpretation

---

I'm not convinced either. You seem to be saying that there is no objectivity possible. And I don't really understand the basis for what you call creative evolution or evolutionary creationism, which seems to me to be a form of wishful thinking or attempt to reconcile in some way that feels good to the intelligent Christian what the early Bible says about God's involvement in the development of humans and everything else with what we have learned about this process in the last 150 years. This is fine, it even feels good to me -- but I'd have to admit that this position seems just as fanciful (though much more empirically acceptable) than resolutely denying on scriptural grounds that evolution was and is the ongoing process by which creatures today have been and are being formed.

But I guess I feel less need of any torturous reconciliation of Christianity to science --it concerns me less because of my (well-known to you, Todd) position on the reliability of Scripture.

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that there is no objectivity possible.

---

That is precisely what I am saying, Laura.

At least, not in the sense that "objectivity" is commonly appealed to in arguments like this. How can any system, whether religious or scientific or whatever, be objective in any thoroughgoing sense when the system's bases for inquiry are assumed axiomatically (as the assumption that nature and nature's processes are measurable and empirically verifiable)? Objectivity ends at the drawing of distinctions about what defines "objects" that are free of the mental phenomena that define subjectivity (as Russ has offered).

And would you suggest, Russ, that mental phenomena exist in some ethereal realm that doesn't have physical existence (surely thought arises in part from neurochemical processes in the axons of our brains, even allowing for human consciousness as a property that isn't entirely reducible to those physical processes)?

While I would agree that Jupiter (the planet) possesses a reality that my mental fantasies do not, I would suggest that the distinction of objective and subjective is considerably fuzzier than you are willing to grant.

And Laura, I'm not quite certain what is so tortuous about believing that God's constant creative activity, geological and biological and cosmological, may truthfully be described as creation in a biblical sense, while also admitting that what science- geological and biological and cosmological- observes in unfolding nature is an evolutionary process, unable (though science is) to discern any ultimate purpose or meaning or goal in the process simply because that lies outside the purview of the scientific methodology that has rightly been adopted. Is there really such a suggestion of intellectual dishonesty as seems implied in your post?

As for natural processes, Croesus, to take simply the example of evolution, I am not saying for a moment that God is using some natural process called evolution to create the cosmos. What I am saying is that what science describes as evolution is the creative activity of God.

quote:

---

While I would agree that Jupiter (the planet) possesses a reality that my mental fantasies do not, I would suggest that the distinction of objective and subjective is considerably fuzzier than you are willing to grant.

---

So much for infelicitous phrasing and fuzzy thinking.

The division of objective and subjective is of course a real one, but not in the sense of there being objective and subjective ways of knowing. Objects are certainly real; the tree on my lawn that I can observe is certainly a real object. And just as certainly, the subjective is real; I, the observing subject, am also real. There is a reality outside myself (the subject), therefore the objective does exist.

Quoting from Lesslie Newbigin,

quote:

---

It is surely obvious that knowing has both a subjective and an objective pole. It is subjective in that it is I who know, or seek to know, and that the enterprise of knowing is one which requires my personal commitment...And it is subjective in that, in the end, I have to take personal responsibility for my beliefs...I am responsible for seeking as far as possible to insure that my beliefs are true, that I am- however funblingly- grasping reality and therefore grasping that which is real and true for all human beings, and which will reveal its truth through further discoveries as I continue to seek.

---

I am going to post this, because I spent two taxi journeys and my half my lunch hour composing it, even though you have preempted what I have to say about 'natural' verses 'supernatural'.

It will be clear to all from this thread that I am not an intellectual. I am not the clearest of thinkers and struggle to put my more intuitive ideas clearly. I pray now that this is clear, because what follows is an understanding of the root of the conflict between Science and Christianity.

Having worked though the issues as they have been raised on the thread and read much populist material on the matter, as a theist, I now no longer have any issue with science or 'evolution'. In addition, I believe that ID falls short of both good science and a good theistic understanding of the nature of God. I need to clarify both these statements to show why there is no conflict between science and Christianity, and at the same time demonstrate why the conflict arises.

Karl, you have often offered to list the evidence for 'evolution'. I would like to offer a summary which may fall short of the exact dates and events, and which you are free to correct. My understanding of the word 'evolution', in one sense is that the world is 4.6 billion years old. The earth cooled down and soon after that, about 3.8 billion years ago as shown by the fossil record, single cell life forms have been found to occur. 1.8 billion years ago more complex forms of life appeared. At some point around the Cambrian period a vast array of complex plants and animals appear in the fossil record and we know much of what happened, paleontologically speaking, since then. That is the broad understanding of 'evolution' and as I said, you may be able to correct me on the details.

Taking that evidence we can all see 'evolution', the development, over a very long period of time, of complex life on earth. Is that a fair summary? Please tell me if I have erred in any way.

Laura, you asked Todd if it all boiled down to the authority of Scripture. That's a half truth because our attitude to scripture and our attitude to creation boil down to a full understanding of the nature of God. Looking at the evidence for evolution set out above, we can see 'natural' processes at work, DNA replication and mutation, reproduction without exact copy, variation, speciation, potential for adaptation, Karl and others may well be able to add more to this brief list of natural processes.

How do we understand God in relation to these 'natural' processes? Philosophical naturalists believe that God has no part to play in the working of 'natural' processes. They are 'natural' in the sense that they work without invoking the need for supernatural intervention. They are predictable because they behave according to the laws of nature. They are 'natural', not 'supernatural'.

This mindset or view has 'evolved' over the last 300 years due to the initial assumption that the physical universe can be understood and, to a very large degree, predicted because it follows 'natural' laws. These 'natural' laws have become, in time, the focus for philosophical naturalists who believe that because the universe and life follows 'natural' laws, that there is no need for a 'supernatural' being to maintain or, perhaps, even create the universe.

But to say that 'natural' processes exclude God is a corruption of a full understanding of God. If the product of chemical reaction or the course of a projectile can be predicted, does that mean that by following 'natural' laws, nature demonstrates the inactivity of God? By no means! A full understanding of God helps us to see that there is no difference between 'natural' processes and 'supernatural' except that the latter may be defined as a process which could not have been predicted by science. If I throw a ball in the air and it doesn't come back down to earth, but hovers for a second, does a couple of loop-the-loops and shoots off over a house, it would be described as a 'supernatural' event because it did not obey the predicted course of 'natural' events. But if I throw the same ball up in the air and it follows a parabolic curve (allowing for air resistance) which can be predicted by a mathematical model, it is said to be a 'natural' event, it does not mean that that God was not involved in that event.

Philosophical naturalists would say that because it was predictable it was 'natural' and not 'supernatural'. Theists should say that there is no distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' because God is constantly operating in nature through his predicable, reliable nature. We can not theistically separate 'natural' and 'supernatural' events, though we can separate them as 'predicable' and 'unpredictable'.

Therefore, 'evolution' as we have observed it, which is mostly predicable or 'natural' in that it has taken many billions of years for complex life to 'evolve' is not in conflict with the nature of God. What is in conflict is the thought that 'evolution' is a chance process, random mutation is not part of God's natural process or nature, but pure luck or survival of the fittest. But the 'natural' events of evolution part of God's action in creation, that is, they occur according to his nature.

Theists are not at liberty to believe that 'evolution' is a chance, random, lucky, uncontrolled, purposeless, non-goal orientated process of 'natural' effects, because the 'natural' events can not be distinguished, in the eyes of a theist, between the predictable nature of God's work in creation and the times when God chooses to do something 'supernatural' that we could not have predicted by laws of nature. God is constantly at work, and 'natural' processes are the work of God, even though we can not detect his presence in this process empirically.

My original question at the start of this thread concerning the effects of ID on our theology was coming at the argument from the wrong direction. It is not that ID will effect our theology but that we need to fully understand the nature of God to make sense of the work of science. It is our theology which must change first. Once we have a full understanding of the nature of God, science will be put in its proper place.

To conclude, Crœsos, as you asked ' what makes this supposition anything more than the idlest of speculations', I'm afraid that you will not like my answer. The answer comes in the form of a question, 'Who was/is Jesus'? I have already posted a Christological basis for the fact that the material world is mute on the matter of faith in God. I encourage you to think about why that is while I spend another couple of taxi journeys and a lunch hour composing another answer.

All the best

quote:

---

What is in conflict is the thought that 'evolution' is a chance process, random mutation is not part of God's natural process or nature, but pure luck or survival of the fittest. But the 'natural' events of evolution part of God's action in creation, that is, they occur according to his nature.

---

Should have read something like:

What is in conflict is the thought that 'evolution' is a chance process, that random mutation is not part of God's natural process or nature, that it is all down to pure luck or survival of the fittest, latent deism. But the 'natural' events of evolution are to be seen by the theist as part of God's action in creation, that is, they occur according to his nature.

The 'Wisdom Literature' of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the book of Job collectively shed interesting light on the matter of empiricism. Glenn may be wondering if picking an choosing scripture is legitimate, but my defense is that the verses are a summary of the overall framework, the big picture, the main thrust of scripture. The approach to empiricism starts with the premise that the universe is created by intelligence, that there is wisdom behind the material world, in Proverbs 8:27-31 Solomon puts it like this:

quote:

---

I (wisdom) was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so that the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.

---

Solomon's description of wisdom stems from general revelation. Creation, conscience, love and beauty all form part of general revelation, that is that we can sense God by such things but that we can not prove that God exists by them. We no that God can not be proved by them, empirically detected, from Ecclesiastes 8:16-17:

quote:

---

When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe man's labour on earth - his eyes not seeing sleep day or night - then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

---

If we are tempted to try to understand the meaning of what goes on under the sun, apart from God, we face the rebuttal Job faced when he dared to take on God.

quote:

---

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
"Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
(Job 38:1-5)

---

Searching for empirical evidence of God in the natural world is a fruitless task, God has put it beyond our comprehension, 'despite all our efforts to search out its meaning'. This does not mean that we should not seek to understand the natural world around us. Indeed scripture encourages us to understand cause and effect so that we can learn to live better lives. Science is a natural activity for good Christian living.

If the natural world can not reveal the purpose or meaning, where do we turn? If we see the big picture, the divine unity, the ongoing thread of God's work in humanity from our being brought into existence by God (100,000 years ago, correct me if that date is empirically wrong); our rebellion; the freeing of the people of Israel from slavery; God's care for his people in spite of their disobedience and deistic adultery; God constantly working to reconcile the his people to himself which culminates in his incarnation, human life, teaching, fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy and law; his unfair trial, unlawful conviction, unjust death, miraculous resurrection, ascension to heaven, divine rule and his future judgement, give purpose and meaning to everything under the sun.

The BBC World Service has once again provided a timely example of the vacuity of science without God. On it's program 'Science View', the BBC covered a story on the history of the relationship between humans and Mars. It was highly informative and an interesting summary the development of our understanding of the 'Red star' and the latter day search for life on Mars.

It concluded with the following prophesy from Robert Zubrin, author of 'The Case for Mars'

quote:

---

The youth of today have a yearning for purpose. The message from Mars is, 'learn your science and you could become part of pioneering a new world'. As mankind emerged from the dark ages, Cathedrals were built as a symbol of purpose. How much more exciting will it be to be part of the establishment of a new cathedral to human purpose, the building of a settlement on Mars?'

---

And then what?

As for Neil's posts, it seems a case of assertions without anything to back them up. I could just as easily claim that my cat is responsible in some vague, unspecified, and mysterious way for all observable phenomena in the Universe, and I would have just as much evidence behind my claim. There are only two points in Neil's slew of postings that really bear commenting upon.

The first is his continued antipathy towards probabilistic behaviour in any portion of the Universe. According to Neil's postings, anyting "chance", "random", or "lucky" is inherently unGodly. Given that such a deterministic viewpoint would invalidate not only most of genetics but also quantum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics, I think it only reasonable for me to expect a more in-depth explanation from him than simply his say-so. Or are you asserting that while certain events have probabilistic characteristics, biological evolution is somehow a "special case"?

The biblical understanding that ‘natural’ events (events which follow ‘the laws of nature’) follow the law under the omnipotent will of God is at least as valid, from the material observations, as the conclusion that no omnipotent being is acting, either that the laws, having been established, govern themselves (deism) or the conclusion that the laws ‘are’ and ‘do’ themselves (naturalism).

All three conclusions stand on level ground on the basis of material observation alone. Indeed the idea that your cat controls everything is as valid on this basis as the three more common postulations.

So why do naturalism and deism sit more comfortably with us today than theism? Could it be to do with our corporate philosophical understanding of nature? As I said, over the last 300 years, the methodological naturalism assumed for scientific investigation has become the justification for philosophical naturalism and deism. To our ‘scientifically’ trained minds, the idea of theism is quite repugnant. The problem faced by theism not the presence of supporting material evidence, but the conditioning of our minds by our education and culture to accept materialism.

The difference between naturalism and theism comes when we confuse the way science can predict ‘natural’ events but can not predict ‘supernatural’. If science can not explain some phenomena, it is said to be ‘supernatural’. This is a naturalist’s label. As ‘supernatural’ events have exceptionally low rate of occurrence, and can often be explained by ‘natural’ methods, God becomes insignificant in our minds, an absentee landlord who cares so little for his creation he doesn’t even bother to intervene ‘supernaturally’ when things go wrong.

But that is not the Biblical understanding of God. ‘Natural’ events are indistinguishable, theologically, from ‘supernatural’. That is, that every material event obeys God.

The cells in our body work, not under our control, or under their own endeavours, but under the ongoing work of God, according to God’s nature. It is only the conscious mind which is at liberty to work against God’s will (and even that is a subject for debate – it needs another thread to discuss the Sovereignty of God and Human free will). ‘Evolution’ then, is seen by the theist to be the ongoing work of Christ in his creation. (Neo)Darwinism faces problems when gradual change is not evident in the fossil record, as admitted by Gould. Random mutation and natural selection are not sufficient to explain either the origin of life or, in light of the fossil record, the development of complex organisms in a short period of time. Intelligent Design is deism in another guise, because it tries to prove intelligence in design but is silent on matters of the sustaining work of God.

But theism pulls all the evidence together and says, ‘as we find out new facts about how life develops on earth, we are witnessing the ongoing work of the God who made and sustains it all’. Forget about the muddied thinking of the church in the past, including YECism, we’ve covered the fact that all cultures have held fast to material philosophies as an understanding of how we came into existence. If we take a proper theistic mindset and look to the future, we can see that all future scientific discoveries will sit within a theistic framework and we will say ‘well done God, what a beautiful creation’. Sorry, I’ve used too many platitudes.

I’ll end this rather long post with the following quotes from scripture which give the theological basis for understanding Christ as both the creator and sustainer of everything.

quote:

---

Hebrews 1:1-3 and 2:7-8
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honour and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

Colossians 1:15-22
He is the image of the invisible (ie undetectable in creation) God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behaviour. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.

---

quote:

---

Q: What causes typhoid?
A: God.

Q: What causes the photoelectric effect?
A: God.

Q: What makes fire burn?
A: God.

---

Which leads to the second reason such an attitude is dangerous. These so called "answers" attributing these and all other phenomena to a mysterious being or beings don't actually answer anything at all. Saying that something called "God" is responsible for fire, or the photoelectric effect, or typhoid tells us nothing about these phenomena.

Your imaginary questions stop well short of the activity of science under theism. I have stated that science is not at conflict with Christianity, if science is viewed as the activity of understanding how things work. The conflict arises when science tries to explain more than how things work (like typhoid and fire) as Dawkins puts it

quote:

---

Science shares with religion the claim that it can answer deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos, but there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.

---

Your imaginary questions stop short of science under theism, because theists are not prohibited by a Biblical understanding from investigating the world, theists are encouraged to do so. Kisten Birkett puts it like this

quote:

---

It should be clear by now that the Bible is in favour of investigating the world. It is God’s world, after all, and it is only appropriate that as caretakers of his world we should be interested in how it works. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously has excellent motivation to take up science, if he or she so wishes.

What is more, we have motivation to take up science through the empirical method. While there is not space here to go into the complexities – or the historical background – the biblical understanding would lead us to think that empiricism is an appropriate method for investigating the world. That is, the Bible shows us that God acts in the world the way he wants to. He has not given first principles from which we can deduce logically how the world must be. The only way we can discover how the world is, is to look at it. The only way to find out how it works, is to investigate it. If we are interested in how the world is put together in a functional sense, we do not simply ponder in our heads, or wait for revelation from God – we go and use our senses and our brains to find out.

---

That is science in its proper place.

Neil

[edited at Neil's request]

What a blunder...there is of course no prohibition of empiricism under theism.

Would an administrator mind, please, adding 'not' prior to the word 'prohibited' in my previous post?

Oops

I have come to what I regard as a sufficient understanding of this issue having wrestled it through on this thread, and learnt much in the process. I've been spurred to read supporting books from every angle (Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin included). Family life demands more of my attention, so I will no longer contribute to the thread.

I have enjoyed having to think about many issues, and hope you have too. I do not have time to answer your point about the passages I quoted being anti-scientific, which they are not. They were concerned with wisdom, the fear (respect) of God being the beginning of such. If you are truly interested in knowing what the passages are about, you can readMatthew Henry's Commentaryas a starter for 10. If you were only interested in picking a fight for the sake of it, then all the best, I wish you well with future debates on science and Christianity, unnatural enemies.

All the best

We have covered on this thread the fact that philosophical naturalism is the view of the natural world which supports and is supported by secular humanism. This is indeed the case according to the Council for Secular Humanism's own webpage

quote:

---

We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world.

---

If the western paradigm is currently post modern, why does our law only consider the secular humanist position? Is it because secular humanism allows individual religious freedom, but restricts that freedom in the shaping of ethics and law? Secular humanists say it is so:

quote:

---

As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural…We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry.

---

So God is kept firmly in place by science. Morals, ethics and law are shaped by relativism. Again, the Council for Secular Humanism says,

quote:

---

There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion…We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation.

---

All was well for secular humanism, until now. The opening line of their statement says:

quote:

---

Secular humanism is a vital force in the contemporary world. It is now under unwarranted and intemperate attack from various quarters.

---

So, secular humanists are aware being 'attacked', where is the attack coming from and what is being attacked? The attack being referred to is the work of scientists who no longer believe philosophical naturalism is a viable position.

The 'attack' has commenced with the undermining the very belief structure of philosophical materialism. Some scientists now claim that nature demonstrates general revelation. It is not that God can be proved by empirical means, but that the material world appears to be the product of wisdom, that it is designed, and that it is not just a product of undirected natural forces.

The 'heat' between philosophical theists and philosophical materialists is not regarding unscientific practice or method. The 'heat' is generated because philosophical naturalists, secular humanists, do not wish to consider the possibility of the divine, or more probably, moral absolutes.

Philip Johnson covers this matter in his is two books, "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education." and "Objections Sustained: Subversive essay's on Evolution, Law and Culture". 'Reason in the Balance' is introduced thus:

quote:

---

According to Naturalism, God has no place in law, science, or the schools. Naturalistic thinking rules the intellectual world, including the public schools, the universities, and the elite of the legal profession.

But is naturalism itself beyond question? Few among the cultural elite have dared doubt it. Now comes Phillip Johnson, Berkeley law professor and former clerk to the U.S. Supreme Court, set to take on the "intellectual superstitions" of the day.

After this book, the culture wars may never be the same again.

---

If secular humanism, then, is seen to be a faith based position, and not based on the 'fact' of naturalism, then secular humanism has no more legitimacy than other faith based positions to govern, dictate law and shape education.

This is what I hoped we could speculate on at the start of this thread, because it is not just the legitimacy of secular humanism but much if not all of last century's liberal theology which has its neck on the block. No wonder no one wanted to debate or consider the possibility that God had anything to do with nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd:
Objects are certainly real; the tree on my lawn that I can observe is certainly a real object. And just as certainly, the subjective is real; I, the observing subject, am also real. There is a reality outside myself (the subject), therefore the objective does exist.

What does not exist is a sort of "objective knowledge" that is supposedly free of value judgments, of a priori decisions about what constitutes reality, of personal commitment.

All those things that have been denigrated as mere "subjectivity" are really the only way that human beings have of understanding "objective" reality.

---

Todd,

I rather suspect that the tree you can observe on your lawn has objective existence. Can it not be observed by anyone, regardless of their value judgements, personal commitments ? Could a rational person conceivably take a prior decision that trees don't exist and thus be completely unable to perceive it ? Seems to me that we are sense-equipped to perceive trees and therefore perceive them whether their existence be consistent with our philosophy or not.

However, there may also be on/within your lawn much tinier plants that one would only perceive if one set out to look for them. It seems to me that they have exactly the same kind of objective existence as the tree, but because of their scale, they have a different relationship with human beings. Our relationship with them is such that our philosophy and interests may be relevant to whether we perceive them or not, or act on the perception if we do. ("That doesn't count as a weed, it's too small").

Some perceptions are preceded by a decision of the observing subject as to what to pay attention to. Some perceptions arrive unsought.

Seems to me that you're miffed that the methodological naturalism (wonderful phrase - thanks Karl!) of science appears to grant to God merely a second-class existence as a subjective phenomenon alongside visions, illusions, philosophies and ideas. And are therefore moved to attack, inaccurately, the foundations of science.

How dare science belittle religion !

Croesus,

You seem to be taking the opposite tack. Having agreed that the scientific method will never detect the existence of God, you seem to see no reason to postulate a God at all.

Why doesn't religion just lie down and die now that science is here to explain things?

Can I suggest that the importance to us humans of values and purposes are not diminished by the fact that they are unscientific ? And that you might be better of approaching religion as being about values and purposes, and not about explaining things in term of the existence of supernatural entities ?

But I find that Neil has changed his mind about intelligent design and has signed off the thread (after a colossal amount of writing on his part - thanks for the thread Neil). Never mind it was fascinating reading for its own sake, not just for debate!

Ah well, I'll post my review over the weekend and I will also take up Neil's comments that:

quote:

---

If secular humanism, then, is seen to be a faith based position, and not based on the 'fact' of naturalism, then secular humanism has no more legitimacy than other faith based positions to govern, dictate law and shape education.

---

... since I think that secular government and the separation of church and state is vitally important for the health of society and we Christians should support it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Todd,

I rather suspect that the tree you can observe on your lawn has objective existence. Can it not be observed by anyone, regardless of their value judgements, personal commitments ? Could a rational person conceivably take a prior decision that trees don't exist and thus be completely unable to perceive it ? Seems to me that we are sense-equipped to perceive trees and therefore perceive them whether their existence be consistent with our philosophy or not.

---

Unless I've misunderstood him, Todd's not denying that at all. He's not denying that the tree has an existence outside his mind, he's simply noting the fact - surely uncontroversial - that anything we know or understand about that tree is, precisely, stuff that we know. The knowledge therefore, whilst being knowledge of an object that is really, objectively there is, inevitably, subjective knowledge. There is no other kind to be had.

This doesn't lead to non-realism, it doesn't lead to solipsism - it's been a bedrock assumption of most philosophy since Kant.

Tell me more.

You agree that the tree is objectively there. Are its leaves objectively green ? Is it objectively taller than the garden fence ? In what if any sense are its properties determined by the characteristics of the subject who perceives it ?

If it is objectively both green and taller than the garden fence, is the statement that the tree is both green and taller than the garden fence not an objectively true statement ?

Whereas the statement that the tree is very pretty can only be subjective, because it refers to the subject's perception of the tree and not the tree's objective characteristics.

I really don't see the problem.

If I convey to you a photo of the tree, or a description of the tree, such an image will inevitably be incomplete, yes. And in choosing to describe it in a certain way or photograph it from a particular angle I will have made an editorial judgement. Depending on my background I will find some aspects of the tree more worthy of comment than others.

But that doesn't seem to me a reason to deny the distinction between objective and subjective.

Am I missing something obvious here ?

Russ

Welcome back, I hope you had a great holiday. I've decided to quit the thread because this matter was occupying a disproportionate amount of my time. I look forward to your post about Behe/Miller and I will redouble my efforts now to find Miller’s book in Singapore.

I’m also interested to hear your views about the separation of church and state. You might like to read The Council for Secular Humanism's (TCfSH ) Declaration one more time before posting, because this issue is tied up with the legitimacy of any one position for dictating the rules, and TCfSH say that their legitimacy is based on science.

TCfSH item two calls for the separation of church and state:

quote:

---

Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy.

---

What is Secular Humanism if it is not an ideology? Why does it deserve a dominant position in the state?

RuthW, if science can neither prove nor disprove God, then what is Secular Humanism’s religious scepticism based on? Faith.

Behe’s argument.
The living world is full of complicated things. Evolutionary theory tends to explain the existence of these complex things by saying that they ‘have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications’ (Darwin). People like Richard Dawkins have shown how such gradual changes can in principle explain the evolution of complex organs like the eye. Behe wants to move the argument down to the molecular level.

To Darwin’s generation trying to see what went on at the level of the cell was like looking at an opaque, black box. Molecular biology has opened that box up in the last fifty years and revealed incredibly complex systems and structures inside the cell. Behe says that many of these cannot be explained by gradual evolution. (He makes great play of how no one has come up with complete step-by-step accounts of how these systems evolved - and nothing less will satisfy him.) He concludes that such systems must have been designed by an intelligent agent; since it is so massively improbable that any could have sprung into being fully formed, in one event.

Response
In response: the detective work involved in reconstructing the origins of biochemical systems that came into existence over perhaps a billion years is considerable! Seeing that we have only recently begun to understand how these kinds of systems work it is unreasonable to expect people to be able to reconstruct their origin and evolution so soon! Nevertheless some progress is being made and, for example Kenneth Miller shows how Doolittle's account of the evolution of blood clotting is far more persuasive than you would imagine from reading Behe’s book.

Miller also describes other ways of coming at the problem. He tells of experiments with bacteria that show that they have a remarkable ability to evolve complex systems. In addition Pennock discusses computer programs that have been set up to have random variation, plus reproduction, plus selection and have resulted in the evolution of complex virtual ‘creatures’ that had not been dreamed of by the writers of the programs. These are thus not designed features but emergent features of the running program. Both these approaches reveal that random variation plus natural selection is in principle capable of a great deal more complexity than one might think.

Behe and ‘Irreducible Complexity’
Behe tries to argue that a particular type of complexity is particularly hard for gradualistic evolution to account for. He calls it ‘irreducible complexity’. A structure or system is irreducibly complex if it consists of parts that work together to achieve a function but where if any one of the parts is missing it that function is lost.

Behe wants to say that such systems are unevolvable because you cannot select for them bit by bit: you need all of the components for it to function. But he admits that they could evolve in an indirect way. This is exactly the criticism that Orr levels at Behe. Behe just does not explore the idea that ‘Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.’ Nor does he consider Dawkins comments that some systems have lost previously essential elements as others have been able to work without them (we might deny that an arch could be built stone by stone if we ignored the possibility that there was support or scaffolding – now gone- used in its construction).

Instead Behe contents himself with arguing that ‘as the complexity of an interacting system increases though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously (p40)’. This is just not true, all it means is that the route would take a longer time, and with many of the basic molecular systems having taken a billion or so years to evolve a long time was available.

Double standards about analogies
One aspect of Behe’s book that I found particularly irritating was that Behe appears to have a double standard when it comes to the use of analogy in arguments. He uses one rule for evaluating his own (just mention the similarities) and another for his opponents (focus on the differences).

For example on p218 Behe says:

quote:

---

Analogies always are set up so that they … propose that A is like B in a restricted subset of properties. Rust is like tooth decay in that they both start from small spots and work outwards, even though tooth decay takes place in living materials, is caused by bacteria … A Rube Goldberg machine is like a blood-clotting system in that they are both irreducibly complex, even though they have many differences. In order to reach a conclusion based on an analogy, it is only necessary that the deduction flow out of the shared properties. [My italics].

---

Yes, but one has to ask: ‘how does one prove that the deduction does really ‘flow out of the shared properties’?’ You cannot prove it by the analogy itself because you are then arguing in a circle. For example, to argue that ‘This helium filled balloon floats in air, therefore this helium filled gas cylinder will float in air too’ proves that floating flows from the shared property of being filled with helium is obviously wrong. Differences in properties may frustrate the shared ones.

So when Behe says, following on immediately from the last quote:

quote:

---

The irreducibly complex Rube Goldberg machine required an intelligent designer to produce it; therefore the irreducibly complex blood-clotting system required a designer also.

---

As an argument from analogy it fails unless independent grounds can be given for the assertion that irreducible complexity is impossible without design. Given that Behe has admitted that ‘one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route’ for evolving such systems (p 40); and that ‘there is no magic point of irreducible complexity at which Darwinism is logically impossible’ (p203) he must judge the argument to fail.

Just a page later (pp219 to 221) Behe chucks his own insights into analogy overboard by criticising Sober and Dawkins’ use of the set of lettered discs which eventually produce the words ‘ME THINKS IT IS A WEASEL.’ Does he see that the analogy of this system with evolution rests on the shared properties of random variation plus non-random selection? No! Instead he launches into a list of how the system described differs from evolution in that the system has no function, has an intelligent agent doing the selecting etc. In doing so he reveals how completely he misses the point.

But there is worse: both Sober’s and Dawkins’ accounts of this analogy explicitly point out that it is not a complete analogy for evolution. Does Behe mention this? Not at all! I found this the most offensively crass and polemical section of the book!

When Behe’s opponents make analogies between one thing A and another B, he is very quick to highlight the differences between A and B. But when it comes to his own he is less than scrupulous. For example he constantly refers to the cell as a machine, which lulls the unsuspecting reader into being more receptive to comparisons of the molecular systems with mousetraps and Rube Goldberg machines and so on. Why does Behe not point out that the cell is vastly unlike a machine? Machines do not reproduce copies of themselves; do not compete for resources; do not have parents; are not subject to natural selection. Machines are also designed – a nicely covert way of assuming the point in dispute.

Sure, use the example of the (intuitively unevolvable) mousetrap to explain irreducible complexity, but why not then discuss the eminently evolvable Venus Fly trap – nature’s version! Sure, talk about Rube Goldberg machines, but ignore the fact that they are nearly always linear, consist of elements that are vastly different from each other, and generally involve great complexity to perform a simple function. And when you compare it to blood clotting do give due weight to the fact that the system is not linear; the elements are very similar proteins, the function is complex all of which have bearing on its evolvability.

Behe misrepresents Dawkins
I can’t say everything that I would like to about Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box but I can’t overlook his misrepresentation of Dawkins. Behe says (p249) that:

quote:

---

In the Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins tells his readers that even if a statue of the Virgin Mary waved to them, they should not conclude they had witnessed a miracle.

---

Dawkins comes across from this as an irrationally fanatical atheist. In fact Dawkins says no such thing. He explains that the probability of this happening by chance is unimaginably huge, but calculable. He also says that if he was struck by lightning after saying ‘may I be struck by lightning this minute’ he would regard that as a miracle. Since he states that the lightning stiking him after uttering that sentence is, at 250 trillion to one, vastly more probable (and hence less miraculous) than the statue waving I find it incredible that Behe can misrepresent him in this way.

Some annoying rhetoric form Behe
Behe indulges in lots of rhetoric (FAR too much to record here) but some bits that especially annoyed me were:

P97 ‘Doolittle … deserves a lot of credit for being one of the very few - possibly the only person – who is actually trying to explain how this complex biochemical system arose’ (Message: see how science ignores these problems!) Unfortunately Behe forgets that he has already written on p89 that: ‘Several scientists have devoted much effort to wondering how blood coagulation might have evolved.’

P172 ‘In private many scientists admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.’ (Message: see how science hushes up these problems!) But take a look at Behe’s footnote and it turns out that (p283) by ‘in private’ he means published ‘in the scientific journals’!!!

P232-3 ‘The results of these … efforts to investigate the cell … is a … cry of “design!” The result … must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein …’
The reader’s first thoughts might be ‘then is Behe to be ranked with Newton and Einstein?’ But wait a second, they both produced highly original and detailed theories that explained reality in radically perceptive ways. Behe in contrast is just holding his hands up and saying ‘I can’t explain this complexity and I bet no-one can!’ That is hardly in the same league of genius!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
PS: should this go on a new thread? we seem to have drifted away from Darwinism...

---

I enjoyed your posts. Behe does have many flaws in his form of argument. Although, may I say, that your critique was written in the usual rhetorical form that most authors, on all philosophical sides of this matter, adopt. It is not that your arguments were fallacious, but that you concentrated, as a lawyer might, on flaws in Behe’s argument. Turning to what first interested me about Behe's book, what do you think about the bio-chemical challenges on the formation of ATP which I asked Crœsos about earlier, and to which he has posted no response?

Yes you are quite right, I guess I did rather adopt the lawyer’s style of questioning the opposition case but not offering an alternative (Pennock criticises Johnson for doing that in his books). One has to start somewhere though! I am hoping to say a bit more of constructive nature in a later (and shorter!) posting about Miller's book.

In the meantime however, you have raised the question of Adenosine Mono Phosphate (AMP) which Behe covers in chapter 7 of his book. As you know he discusses problems with the idea of metabolic pathways evolving with a particular look at AMP. He points out that AMP is needed to make DNA and RNA. He might have spelled out that this leads to a circle: the AMP needs the enzymes to form; the creation of enzymes depends on their being encoded for in the DNA or RNA; and the DNA needs the AMP to form itself. That’s fine and dandy if the system is set up but how do you get it started? He does raises various similar questions about how the interactive and complex pathway for AMP could possibly evolve gradually.

Behe sets out the view of Creighton writing in 1993 that a pathway converting A to B then B to C then C to D may well have evolved from D being present naturally to begin with, then, when it became scarce cells able to make it from C would have an advantage, and cells that make that from B would do even better and so on (p151).

• I insert a note on rhetoric here (thus being rhetorical myself!) Behe points out that this idea was first proposed by Horowitz in 1945 (p154). Behe takes this as justification to say that this idea has ‘been passed down unreflectively’ (p154). (What a reader of other peoples thoughts he is!) He adds that the view that many ideas ‘get picked up unreflectively’ rather than with our ‘conscious review and assent’ is discussed in Allan Bloom’s book The Closing of the American Mind (p153). (What a provocatively worded title to throw in here!) (Behe’s implied message: what an unthinking, closed-minded bunch these evolutionary scientists are!) But ideas (even old ideas) can get passed on because on reflection they seem to be on the right lines! (I could also mention creeds and Euclid and so on and so forth!) But to make matters worse Behe then cites de Duve who has enlarged and adapted Horowitz’s idea (an excellent example of someone who has NOT picked up the idea in an unreflective way surely!)
  

But to cut to the chase: I think Horowitz’s idea is on the right lines for at least some metabolic pathways. I think de Duve’s ideas, about protometabolic pathways and of catalysts that catalyse a number of reactions, are also along the right lines. What I would emphasise is that Behe has looked at the pathway for AMP synthesis that exists now. Yes, that pathway may be a couple of billion years old, but it probably evolved and changed extensively over a period of half a billion years or more before that. The original pathways are probably very different from what they are today. Intermediates and catalysts that used to be involved probably no longer exist.

As you may know Cairns Smith in Seven Clues to the Origin of Life has proposed that the first replicating and selectable things on earth were very likely not RNA or DNA based systems. What originally functioned in a ‘genetic’ way was not RNA or DNA (no need for AMP at that stage). (Dawkins discusses Cairns Smiths ideas in The Blind Watchmaker ) He proposes other possibilities and suggests the idea that a great deal of evolution of such systems took place before RNA or DNA began to be used for coding purposes but that, once it did, it took over the function because it was so much better at it. On this model it is thus highly likely that the original metabolic systems were also very different from what they are now. And on this model some path for AMP production probably came into existence from these earlier metabolic systems before RNA and DNA got going.

As for his discussion of regulation of the rate of reactions Behe does not once mention the fact that reactions – even catalysed ones - have their own equilibrium states (the proportion of A to B in the conversion of A to B for example). Nor does he mention that the extent of the reaction (its equilibrium state) would be amenable to natural selection too, often on a gradual rather than all-or-nothing basis.

Working all this out is going to take science some time, and it may even be that the truth is lost in the mists of the remote past some 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

Which leads me to remark that Behe did irritate me in the way he harps on again and again along the lines of ‘no one has a clue’ about how this or that system evolved. But what is he doing when he discusses the ideas of people like de Duve and Doolittle if not reporting the clues that they think they have and are following up? He irritated me again when he seems to think that he can dismiss de Duve’s work by saying that he fails to put names to the chemicals in his protometabolic pathways. But how do theories begin if not with speculation? It seems that not only has Behe no time for step by step evolution of life he doesn’t have any time for the step by step formation of a theory – he wants the full, complete and detailed thing to spring forth fully formed! Instead of being sent forth to encounter and benefit from criticism and ideas from others first.

Could life have come into being through gradual evolution? Well the evidence for evolution is very strong, the fossil record, homologous structures in different species, DNA finger printing correlating so well with classification of animals and plants arrived at by other means, etc. Given all that, evolution seems to me the best explanation we have at the moment. Sure we don’t know how to explain all the details but Behe’s alternative of some primeval cell with a colossal genome with all the information in it later organisms would need won’t work. The genes that were not expresses would not be kept in working order by natural selection. As a result a couple of billion years of copying error and accidental deletions would have wasted them away and turned what remained of them into nonsense. Thus the genes for the clotting mechanism would have wasted away long before the animals they serve so well came on the scene.

By the way, Pennock has criticised Behe’s ch7 Groundhog metaphor. His book ( Tower of Babel- a critique of the new creationism ) is one you may want to look at because of his long critique of Johnson.

Thanks again for a thread that has proved so stimulating. I see that it has offspring in the ‘Objective and Subjective’ thread, I wonder if that too will evolve!

Many thanks again. You have evidently thought through Behe's work at length. You said

quote:

---

Could life have come into being through gradual evolution? Well the evidence for evolution is very strong, the fossil record, homologous structures in different species, DNA finger printing correlating so well with classification of animals and plants arrived at by other means, etc. Given all that, evolution seems to me the best explanation we have at the moment.

---

I agree that the development of life was gradual, and that 'evolution' is the term applied to gradual development. But, with this view in mind, I have two questions to ask. Firstly, what did you think about the ‘natural’/supernatural’ as opposed to ‘predictable/unpredictable’ concept?

That was to say that theists see no difference between ‘natural’ events and ‘supernatural’ (a philosophical materialists’ term) because there is no difference…God is always active, sustaining his creation. The only difference from our subjective perspective is whether we could have predicted the way God acted in an event. If we could not have predicted it, we call itsupernatural. But to exclude God from the ‘natural’ event is not theism, it is deism.

Under theism, it doesn’t matter if ‘evolution’ was gradual or rapid, whether it could have been predicted by Darwin’s scientific theory (ie that ‘evolution’ was the predictable action of God in nature) or not. What matters is that God is in control of every action, the terms ‘natural’ and supernatural do not apply, because there is no distinction. Everything we see around us in science is supernatural, because God is involved, we just forget it because almost everything is unpredictable’, such is God’s nature.

Secondly, would you agree with the view that Behe et al are not doing science (as defined as understanding the ‘predictable action of God in nature, but that they are indulging in a commentary of general revelation? That is that God is evident through his creation. Behe can see the wonder of creation at a microbiological level, and has turned it from a commentary of the wonder of it all, into pseudo-science.

Any comments?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
That was to say that theists see no difference between ‘natural’ events and ‘supernatural’ ... because there is no difference…God is always active, sustaining his creation.

---

quote:

---

The only difference from our subjective perspective is whether we could have predicted the way God acted in an event. If we could not have predicted it, we call itsupernatural.

---

I would accept that God does, occasionally, work in ways outside his normal practice; these are miracles. I think much that is called "supernatural" could have natural explanations (some hauntings may be purely psychological for example) although the use of the term for things which are genuinly beyond any reasonable chance of natural explanation is fair enough. I think I'd like to invent another word to describe things of God; that is "meta-natural", completely beyond natural (transcendant would do, but has deist connotations).

Just a few more thoughts,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Breaking with the notion that everything happens at the whim of some supernatural entity or entities was the first step on the road to science.

---

quote:

---

Such supernatural explanations have a stifling effect on scientific inquiry for two reasons. First, if everything has the same answer intellectual laziness is fostered ... These so called "answers" attributing these and all other phenomena to a mysterious being or beings don't actually answer anything at all.

---

quote:

---

the same thinking and attitudes are still common in the Church today. These include the notion that material, scientific evidence should be subordinate to theological philosophy and, in cases of disagreement, scientific evidence should be ignored in favor of theological expediency.

---

quote:

---

Firstly, what did you think about the ‘natural/supernatural’ as opposed to ‘predictable/unpredictable’ concept?

---

Yes, I agree with you, excluding God from being connected with natural events and relegating him to only supernatural events is not a theological stance I would approve of. The way the universe is is to some extent an expression of God. Of course applying the term ‘expression’ to God is inevitably metaphorical. I dislike too much emphasis on the natural/supernatural distinction for other reasons too. It can lead to an undervaluing of what we call the natural; and it lends itself to readily to seeing God in too anthropomorphic a way.

Miller has some speculations about God’s relation to the world involving the inherent indeterminism of quantum events which I hope to comment on and which seem promising.

quote:

---

Secondly, would you agree with the view that Behe et al are not doing science (as defined as understanding the ‘predictable action of God in nature, but that they are indulging in a commentary of general revelation?

---

Yes. I think that to the extent that Behe and his colleagues stop looking for how physical laws (or ‘law like regularities’ if one prefers that expression) might be able to explain the development and origin of complex biochemistry, then to that extent they have stopped doing science on those problems.

I understand that part of their research and work is devoted to developing a good theory about how to distinguish intelligent design from design arising from physical laws. I have no objection to this research being seen as science. I do not know much about their ideas on this, however.

Finally, while we have fairly clear ideas about what is involved in a human designing something, God designing the universe is unique and must be a very different affair, as well as having enough similarities for the word design to be appropriate.

22:26 Singapore time...this needs to be quick.

I like the idea of using 'meta-natural' as a term to describe the 'unpredictable'. There is a job to somehow convince Joe Public that God is active, even though naturalism has come to define a world without God.

Is there any truth in conclusion that assuming naturalism for science has led to a closed loop where philosophical naturalism is true because the naturalism (predictability) of nature proves that philosophically naturalism is true? If so, how do theists begin to demonstrate the flaw in the argument?

I said it would be quick

Having seen the error in Behe's argument, from a theological perspective rather than empirical angle, I may have left you and Alan with the impression that I accept 'evolution' as fact. I would like to point out that I do not accept 'evolution' as fact, from both a theological perspective and empirical angle. Why? Empirically, it is a theory with more gaps than my granmother's teeth. Theologically, random, purposeless and material results in deism not theism.

To illustate this, I have come to the end of Romans 11 in my study and meditation this morning, and add the doxology from verses 33 to 36 as a fitting summary of theism and why Christianity and science are therefore unnatural enemies.

quote:

---

33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" 35 "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

---

According to this doxology, ‘evolution’ can not be random, purposeless and material because God is at work in his creation (from him) at all times sustaining it (through him) and one day it will all come to an end and we will meet with him (to him) either, in the context of the preceding chapters, as God’s elected people or as objects of God’s wrath.

Whether ‘evolution’ was continuous or whether God designed it intelligently or acted in ways which science could not predict (given that science is the gathering of empirical evidence for the predictable nature of God) at points such as the development of self-replicators or the sudden development of complex life form in the pre-Cambrian explosion, or whether it was all made 10,000 years ago is merely squabbling over pennies. The big picture is that God made it all, sustains it all and will judge it all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
I would like to point out that I do not accept 'evolution' as fact, from both a theological perspective and empirical angle. Why? Empirically, it is a theory with more gaps than my granmother's teeth. Theologically, random, purposeless and material results in deism not theism.

---

However, the view expressed by myself and several others, which I have called theistic materialism, is very different from these views. This is theism, with God intimately involved in his creation, upholding and sustaining it. From a materialistic (ie: scientific) perspective the universe appears to run by laws, and evolution has no apparent purpose; science still works to give us increasingly improved understanding of the material world as it actually is. However, at the same time we can say philosophically that there is purpose and meaning, and also that there is more than just the material. Thus, God can truly be the one from whom, through whom and to whom are all things.

quote:

---

Whether ‘evolution’ was continuous or whether God designed it intelligently or acted in ways which science could not predict (given that science is the gathering of empirical evidence for the predictable nature of God) at points such as the development of self-replicators or the sudden development of complex life form in the pre-Cambrian explosion, or whether it was all made 10,000 years ago is merely squabbling over pennies. The big picture is that God made it all, sustains it all and will judge it all.

---

quote:

---

Why? Empirically, it is a theory with more gaps than my granmother's teeth.

---

Not so fast, Monsieur Robbie, not so fast...

Over the intervening 26 years we have been able to find out how similar the genes are in organisms, that genetic fingerprinting shows organisms to be 'related' in just the patterned way you would expect from evolution. We have found out about hox genes and their efffect on development and that they are in us as well as fruit flies.

Evolutionary theory has enlarged too and new ideas about sexual selection and other aspects have been put forward and tested out.

So the gaps were there, some are there still but many have been filled. Rome wasn't built in a day. Exploring all the ramifications of a theory takes a long time.

quote:

---

The seed for this book was sown in my childhood…gazing at the heavens and pondering the eternal riddles of life. How far is infinity? How long is eternity?…Over and over we would pose and ponder the questions, then discard them in frustration until the very next night.

Childhood summers soon faded into adolescent memories…My gaze turned inward and my view of God grew dim as faith born of natural observation was exchanged for scientific dogma learned by rote. Seeking to please my teachers and avoid the ridicule of peers, I dutifully parroted Darwin’s mantra and denied God the glory of His creation. New discoveries would often rip embarrassing holes in the fabric of macroevolutionary theory, but my pride kept me from seeing the philosophical nakedness they revealed. I simply trusted that science would patch the holes and validate my belief. The holes kept getting bigger, requiring narrower blinders and greater faith to avoid seeing the obvious.

…I began reading the Bible. Gently but steadily the blinders were pulled back, until I could no longer deny the truth before me: the perfection of everything in the heavens and on earth could only have come from the mind of an all-knowing, all –powerful, all-loving Designer, and never from an eternity of time plus chance.

---

In short, this book shows (contra Ric Ergenbright view in Neil's most recent post) how evolution does not rob God of his credit for the glories of creation.

Karl recommended this book, and what a good book it is. I would put it at the top of my list of books to recommend to any Christian wanting to consider the issue of evolution and its religious implications. (Closely followed by Pennock’s book The Tower of Babel )

Miller’s book is in three main parts. The first is two chapters that introduce the topic and which give a brief history of the theory of evolution and the evidence for it.

The second part consists of three chapters that critique various creationist viewpoints. ‘God the Charlatan’, looks at Morris and Whitcomb’s ideas of a young earth and contains the best short examination of radioactive dating that I have come across. The Rubidium/Strontium test is compelling and compellingly described. ‘God the magician’ looks at the evidence against the idea that each species was separately created. ‘God the mechanic’ is a very good critique of Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box.

There is then an interlude chapter that looks at ways that some atheists have tried to use evolution as evidence against religion. He points out that these writers have and assumption in common with the creationists, namely

quote:

---

that … if the origins of living organisms can be explained in purely material terms, then the existence of God – at least any God worthy of the name - is disproved. (p190)

---

‘What I propose to do next’ says Miller ‘is to ask if that assumption is true.’ This he does in the final three chapters of the book. This is the final and constructive part of the book in which Miller expounds the ways that evolution is compatible with Christianity and religious understandings of the world.

Christian critics of evolution tend to loathe the idea of randomness involved in evolution. Their alternative is to see the world as one which is essentially deterministic (to avoid randomness) but in which God interferes (to avoid deism). Miller points out that modern physics no longer sees the world as essentially deterministic, and, in Ch 7, he points out that the mutations that underlie evolution occur at the atomic level and therefore involve quantum effects. Quantum theory appears to show that randomness and uncertainty are built into the fabric of the universe; they are part of God’s creation. The universe is one in which natural laws and chance are inextricably mixed together. Miller explores the idea that this kind of world is one for which a more satisfying model for God’s action and for our own is possible than for other kinds.

He quotes Polkinghorne:

quote:

---

The actual balance between chance and necessity, contingency and potentiality which we perceive seems to me to be consistent with the will of a patient and understanding Creator, content to achieve his purpose through the unfolding of process and accepting thereby a measure of the vulnerability and precariousness which always characterizes the gift of freedom by love. (p242)

---

… and Barbour:

quote:

---

Natural laws and chance may be equally instruments of God’s intentions. There can be purpose without an exact predetermined plan. (p238) [My italics, G.O.]

---

From the perspective of the debate in this thread Miller rejects the idea of seeing God’s design in terms of inexplicable features of the universe in the way Behe does, he sees Gods design in a larger sense of being responsible for the basic structure of the universe and the quantum uncertainty in its nature. He covers other issues than those I have mentioned including some comments on evolutionary psychology/socio-biology.

The title of the book comes from Millers appreciation of the spirit of what Darwin said at the end of On the Origin of Species:

quote:

---

There is a grandeur in this view of life; with its several powers having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone on cycling on according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been, and are being evolved.

---

All in all this is an excellent and stimulating book. Thanks again Karl!

http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/comic.html#lites

quote:

---

How many Intelligent Designers does it take to change a light bulb?
Looks like I'll never know--I asked some to do this simple task, and they started talking about how this 'simple task' was actually composed of many, many sub-tasks, each of which ITSELF was composed of many, many sub-sub-tasks, each of THESE of which was ITSELF composed of many, many sub-sub-sub-tasks, each of THESE...I think they are up to 10^5 "subs" now...a living fractal, how kewl...(wish I could see them better in this darkness, though).

---

quote:

---

How many Richard Dawkins' does it take to change a light bulb?
According to his computer simulation, it only takes twelve of his cells--but he said I would have to be really, really patient.

---

I hope you enjoy this

Funktown Mall