Animal Biotechnology and Guided Evolution

[Camron]

This was an excellent reply - thanks. I didn’t really take enough time to answer your questions thoroughly – I wasn’t sure where you were going with them. But it’s clear that you’re taking a very open-minded view to the total picture rather than just trying to win something, and that is very much appreciated.

In my opinion (and experience) both sides have to take an open mind lest the arguments just drop into absurd polemics. I’m not interested in that kind of discussion.

My reasons to question the theory of gradual change and the proposed evolutionary progress from single celled organisms to the spectrum of plant and animal species on the planet are mainly the criticisms given by the ID movement.

Perhaps you could provide some of these in point form for further discussion. I’ve read a range of book from both sides.

I find those critiques to be convincing. I add those to my own non-scientific observations of nature. I don’t see how it’s possible that the grandeur and splendor of nature – the incredible diversity, complexity, pattern and beauty could have been the product of mutations and natural selection.

If you’re saying that it’s impossible for mutations and natural selection to produce the incredible diversity, complexity, patterns and beauty of God’s creation then you’ve effectively closed your mind to the discussion. Myself I think that God could have intervened. And, at the same time, I am stressing that one needs to be very careful before claiming they have scientific evidence of God’s direct intervention.

I just don’t see evidence that natural selection works that way in the world.

Come now. You must see some evidence of natural selection and mutation at work throughout God’s creation. It seems nearly impossible for me to believe someone when they make a claim that they see no evidence that natural selection works that way in the world. I see it and I see a lot of it.

The mathematics behind these changes also seem impossible to me. Perhaps not as obvious as the fine-tuning of the universe to be perfectly suited for planet earth to provide life – the fine-tuning of the biological world makes the random-mutation, natural selection story seem impossible to consider.

Why is it impossible to consider? Again, this seems to be taking an extreme stance against evolution in my opinion, and not an open-minded view.

Why isn’t it possible that both are somewhat true, so that God, for example, created the fine tuned universe to create via evolutionary processes as He intimately guided them along their evolutionary paths?

Why, for example, can’t the fine-tuning of the universe also be seen to be working in harmony with the evolution of species along an elegantly played superstring instrument which God Himself is playing?

Again, I do not accept the either/or proposition. If you are not even willing to consider that this could have happened then you yourself are not being open minded. I can respect that you are convinced of the truth of the ID movement. But I personally cannot accept that someone sees no evidence. I see evidence of both an Intelligence Mind and an Evolution of Species at work at the same time.

I follow what you’re saying in general terms, but I really don’t see how this can be compatible with Darwinian theory.

I’m not fully talking about Darwinian Theory. I’m taking about Theistic Evolution. Darwinian Principles work within the framework of Theistic Evolution. But without God there would have never been any evolution to begin with, not even the chance for evolution to even happen.

A common question is “why would God make it appear that evolution was correct when He actually created things in a different way?”

I personally find the atheistic evolutionary arguments against God “designing” the universe to be about as effective as asking why would an all-good God allow the existence of evil. In other words, they don’t work in my opinion.

But I would ask the question why God would make it appear as if all of creation was designed (as Richard Dawkins admits that it appears) but it was actually the result of accidental processes.

What evidences did Richard refer to when he said that it appears as if all of creation was designed? Could you be more specific?

 

[Camron]

But beyond that, as I see it, once we posit God as an active “player” in the development of nature – this causes enormous problems for the standard evolutionary theory. How do you reconcile God’s guidance of the process with the belief that there is no discernable evidence of His guidance (as it is claimed although I disagree with that)?

But I’m not claiming there is no discernable evidence of His guidance. I am saying that it takes faith to see the creator behind His creation, something which the science cannot directly approach, even if it can whittle way as the false conceptions about nature so as to reveal the true intelligence behind the creation.

Science creates a sense of wonder that forces one to look further than what science itself can answer. The same can be said regarding philosophy too, although I suspect that a sound philosophy is on a surer footing than science.

Do you believe that based on some inner conviction or do you see some evidence (scientific or not) that supports your view?

I believe that God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse, since the creation of the world.

I also believe that, by faith, we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command (so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible).

I believe that although science cannot distinctly confirm this, science does point in this direction, via the sheer magnitude and glory and order of God’s wonder-filled creation.

Beauty itself is an evidence of God’s existence in my opinion. But how do I use science to prove this?

Ok, this seems to be a contradiction of sorts. You questioned whether ID was misleading people to think that God’s work is revealed in nature. I think you asked what would happen if this was not true. I assumed you were questioning the existence of God.

No. And I’ve been very clear that I am not questioning God’s existence, so please do not do that again. I am only questioning the proposed scientific evidence which claims that it has scientifically verified that intelligence was directly, tangibly and measurably involved in the creation of all species on this earth.

These two positions do not automatically go hand in hand. And by now you should clearly understand that I do not think that the evidence of evolution directly contradicts God’s role as our creator either.

The Catholic Church has said that we are permitted to believe that God used evolutionary processes to bring about life on earth.

The Catholic Church has also stated that God can use contingent processes to bring about His will too.

These things happen all the time in our modern day. They have happened in the New Testament. They have happened in the Old Testament. And God has used them to accomplish His will, to work according to His plan. Indeed, we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.

Therefore, if indeed God’s creation has been designed by God to praise to Him and give Him glory then I see no reason to believe that God could not use contingent processes to bring about all the species on this world that we see today either, all according to His will.

But in my view, if God exists and has been involved in the development of nature, then it wouldn’t be correct or accurate to exclude His influence on the process.

I am not excluding His influence on the process. I am only questioning the proposed scientific evidence which claims that it has scientifically verified that intelligence was directly, tangibly and measurably involved in the creation of all species on this earth.

If one is talking about God’s involvement in the direct and tangibly measurable sense, more akin to God’s Incarnation as Christ our Lord, then yes we can use science to *reasonably verify *that Jesus was truly a man who truly existed within a specific period within truly human history.

I don’t think, however, that we can use science to verify that God’s Spirit was *directly involved in the speciation of life *though, even if the overall message of creation on a **spiritual level **points in the direction of God’s involvement.

Some will say that God’s only influence was in creating the laws – after that, the laws do all the “creating”. To me that seems like saying “God created gravity and gravity caused the avalanche – therefore, God’s creative power is seen through this action of gravity”. It’s true that God created gravity and His providence guides all things, but God has created natural laws to act in a “mindless” manner. They do not create intelligent results – and nothing like the diversity of plant and animal life that we see.

Have you ever noticed that we often see human behavior reflected in nature, how we tend to allow an anthropomorphosis of nature take place in our mind?

Is it not possible that these “human behaviors” we see in nature are not actually a result of God’s intelligence anthropomorphosising nature into His own latent image, with the nearly final result being the creation of humanity, leading toward God’s creation culminating in the Incarnation of Christ?

The Bible does say in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

 

[edwest2]

By thinking that there must be a scientific way to understand would not be possible regarding the things Jesus did. A scientist standing right next to Him and able to examine people He healed or raised from the dead would have no ability whatsoever to determine, using his five senses, and training, how any of it was done. And if he asked Jesus how it was done and was literally told that he was God, what would the scientist say? No?

The focus, therefore, cannot be completely or even mostly on the science. I think it would be most helpful to acknowledge as true and given, that God has power and abilities that go beyond scientific investigation. Being “very careful” regarding assertions about science should be considered in this regard, but people should also be “very careful” about what the Church holds as real and true knowledge.

It is at this interface that the disaggreements begin. Those that hold science as the only way of explaining reality and the only way of answering questions about reality, dismiss such things as false. But God, to qualify as God, is defined as being far beyond man in power, intellect and other capacities. If discussing such issues as man and his creation only falls into the scientific realm, what is the point of presenting it in only that way on a Catholic forum?

As a Catholic, I find it entirely possible that a single woman (not a population) was created by God directly from the side of a single man named Adam. Science is limited in its view of the larger reality inhabited by Christians around the world.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

But I’m not claiming there is no discernable evidence of His guidance. I am saying that it takes faith to see the creator behind His creation, something which the science cannot directly approach, even if it can whittle way as the false conceptions about nature so as to reveal the true intelligence behind the creation.

First of all - thanks again for an excellent reply. I appreciate the thought that you put into it. I need to put more care into my own responses because I’m not as accurate as I should be.

On this case, I would think that if there is discernable evidence of the guidance of God in nature, then this is something that human beings can consider, explain and pursue.

If the question is whether one thing is science or not, I don’t think that’s something that science itself can answer. It’s a philosophical foundation that gives us some agreement on what science is and what it can’t be.

Science creates a sense of wonder that forces one to look further than what science itself can answer. The same can be said regarding philosophy too, although I suspect that a sound philosophy is on a surer footing than science.

Agreed. A sound philosophy looks at the meaning of all things in a universal scope. Science has an important role but it’s limited to external reality.

I believe that God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse, since the creation of the world.

I find it hard to reconcile St. Paul’s teaching with evolutionary theory. I suppose that one could say that all of nature is created by blind, accidental, natural forces – and that is an expression of God’s power that can be clearly seen. But that doesn’t follow as I see it. The natural laws just do whatever they do. There would be no reason to admire what they create, especially since it was accidental and without purpose or plan.

Beauty itself is an evidence of God’s existence in my opinion. But how do I use science to prove this?

I don’t know why we would need scinece to prove this at all. Beauty is evident to the human soul – through human intuition and perception. If science cannot prove that there is beauty in the world, then this clearly indicates some severe limitations on what that particular science can do. As such, how can it provide theories on the origins of things that possess beauty? Do we turn to scientists to learn how to produce the great works of art – the works of Shakespeare or Michangelo? (One evolutionary-defender here of CAF answered “yes” to this). We would have to say that blind natural laws created works of beauty greater than anything the intelligence of man could create. But if so, why doesn’t “random art work” create anything of similar beauty? Great art is the product of intellligence and imagination. We see great design, color, harmony, shape, meaning, power, contrast, balance, and more in nature. As I view it, this is an argument for Intelligent Design vs Darwinian processes.

I am only questioning the proposed scientific evidence which claims that it has scientifically verified that intelligence was directly, tangibly and measurably involved in the creation of all species on this earth.

I don’t think that ID has been that sweeping in its conclusions. If someone has said something as you’ve stated it here, then I would agree with your questioning of this matter.

I am not excluding His influence on the process. I am only questioning the proposed scientific evidence which claims that it has scientifically verified that intelligence was directly, tangibly and measurably involved in the creation of all species on this earth.

I find the evidence to be convincing, myself. I’ve read the counter-arguments and those do not seem strong in my view either.

I don’t think, however, that we can use science to verify that God’s Spirit was *directly involved in the speciation of life *though, even if the overall message of creation on a **spiritual level **points in the direction of God’s involvement.

With credit to ID, it doesn’t propose that God’s Spirit was necessarily involved. It merely looks for “intelligent causes” in nature. It uses an analogy with human intelligence and how we determine if human intelligence is involved in something (and what characteristics an intelligently designed thing has) and then seeks to find similar evidence in nature.

Have you ever noticed that we often see human behavior reflected in nature, how we tend to allow an anthropomorphosis of nature take place in our mind?

Yes, I do that all the time and I believe God created nature to teach us about ourselves and, most especially, about Himself.

Is it not possible that these “human behaviors” we see in nature are not actually a result of God’s intelligence anthropomorphosising nature into His own latent image, with the nearly final result being the creation of humanity, leading toward God’s creation culminating in the Incarnation of Christ?

I would fully agree with this, yes.

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps you could provide some of these in point form for further discussion. I’ve read a range of book from both sides.

I will do that later this evening or tomorrow. I will add some additional points that are not normally a part of the ID theories also.

If you’re saying that it’s impossible for mutations and natural selection to produce the incredible diversity, complexity, patterns and beauty of God’s creation then you’ve effectively closed your mind to the discussion.

What I meant was that it “seems impossible”. I just mean that my own personal observations of nature (which are mainly in the poetic or artistic view) make evolutionary theory “seem impossible”. But I hope I am not close minded about what science says on it. I admit that I have set some internal filters perhaps too tightly against evolutionary theorists because I feel that there is a lot of false information passed through scientific channels. So I am not as open or trusting of what evolutionists claim as someone who is new to the topic would be.

Come now. You must see some evidence of natural selection and mutation at work throughout God’s creation. It seems nearly impossible for me to believe someone when they make a claim that they see no evidence that natural selection works that way in the world. I see it and I see a lot of it.

Where do you see it?

Why isn’t it possible that both are somewhat true, so that God, for example, created the fine tuned universe to create via evolutionary processes as He intimately guided them along their evolutionary paths?

Ok, I don’t see a process that is guided by God as being what we normally call “evolution”. That would be very similar to God’s “special creation” of everything since natural processes acting along could not produce the things we find in nature.

Why, for example, can’t the fine-tuning of the universe also be seen to be working in harmony with the evolution of species along an elegantly played superstring instrument which God Himself is playing?

The fine-tuning of the universe is something we can observe and as a result, it becomes very difficult to explain how this mathematical precision came about by accident. But this doesn’t stop scientists from embracing the multiverse theory, for example, an idea that really has zero evidence to support it.

But on your question, I see the fine-tuning of the universe to work in harmony with the fine-tuning of nature. While the cosmological constants and precisions cannot be answered by science, I likewise don’t think the nature and development of life with its complexity and fine-tuning can be answered by evolution.

Again, I do not accept the either/or proposition. If you are not even willing to consider that this could have happened then you yourself are not being open minded.

When I say “no evidence” I’m not referring to the bits and pieces that are used as examples of various changes in organisms, but rather “no evidence” that the broad, sweeping claims of evolutionary theory in its fullest (and “orthodox”) presentation are fully and completely true.

If the argument was given by the science community today in the terms that you’re offering, then there would be far less hostility directed towards evolution. If there was some room for God to truly act as God – as Creator and ruler of all the earth and the life on it – then one could easily accept that we can see some minor changes here and there. But the claim is that the most insignificant changes and adaptations that one can observe are “evidence” that all of nature evoloved from early organic substances. This really stretches the argument and also makes great assumptions about what evolution actually could produce.

 

[reggieM]

I’m not fully talking about Darwinian Theory. I’m taking about Theistic Evolution. Darwinian Principles work within the framework of Theistic Evolution. But without God there would have never been any evolution to begin with, not even the chance for evolution to even happen.

God does act in creation in a variety of ways – making His presence known and felt to a greater or lesser degree. God has permitted some things in nature to appear “mindless”, “accidental” or “random” to give us this experience. So there are “natural forces” which are unpredictable and fit the definition of what we call “random”. It’s those forces that are claimed to be the “creators” of all life - and those are what is meant by “blind, evolutionary processes”. They couldn’t exist without God – but if they follow natural laws, then what they produce will be predictable.

The issue as I see it, is whether the natural laws create the diversity, fine-tuning and complexity of life or not. If the answer is “they do” – then I don’t see what God has to do with it really. Natural laws do all kinds of things, but as such, they’re not evidence of God. In fact, the natural laws are so limited in what they create for the most part (evolutionary “laws” are a striking exception) that when we see fine-tuning in the universe, scientists cannot accept that natural laws created it.

But if the laws of nature simply create all the plant, animal and human life – then the laws just do this. There would be no more reason to say these laws are “guided” than there is a reason to think that raindrops are “guided” when they fall from clouds. They just come down. They create rain puddles. We might like the puddle or not, but it’s not much of an example of the greatness of God.

Now I would say that the “substance” of the rain is something that indicates God. But that substance is not the product of natural laws. In other words, the substance of water – and all the remarkable things it does on earth, are more than what the natural laws can produce. Water is more than H2O – its a life-sustaining substance of remarkable power.

What evidences did Richard refer to when he said that it appears as if all of creation was designed? Could you be more specific?

I will find the quote and post it later. Basically, he was just agreeing with the age-old teleological argument. He admitted that nature appears to be designed – to the naked human eye it looks like nature is a miracle of design.

This is what I believe St. Paul meant in the passage you quoted. I believe the Psalmist meant this also in many of the psalms that speak of the glory of God on the earth. Jesus’ words also refer to the same thing as I see it.

 

[edwest2]

Allow me to offer a shift in worldview, since the Church recognizes that there is a relationship between an observer and the objects he observes. The Word of God will be primary, with science secondary. It will be a given here that the Bible records things God actually did.

God, by His will, brought the universe into existence. The Church states that the universe has a finite age.

The earth is created. The microorganisms, plants and animals will all be living in the same gravity, under the same atmosphere and atmospheric pressure and will have primary and secondary body plans, and all will be constituted from the dust of the earth. The only fully rational and relational being on earth is man, shortly followed by woman.

Man and woman are in full communion with God. They will not die. Then, through freely disobeying God, they become subject to death, physical and spiritual. Children are born.

As the world is populated, another crisis occurs. Most men disobey God and He destroys the world by a flood, saving some people. God promises not to do that again.

God shows his favor on Abraham and the people of Israel. He makes a covenant with them. He speaks through the prophets.

The Israelites are slaves in Egypt until Moses leads them out. God protects them, feeds them and gives them water. They wander in the wilderness until those who have disobeyed die.

Then He sends his only Son. Jesus heals the sick, the blind, the leper. He tells a learned man that he must be born again. The learned man, having only human knowledge, asks “Must I crawl back into my mother’s womb?” Jesus tells him clearly, “What is born of the flesh is flesh. What is born of the spirit is spirit.”

Once this happens, we become new creatures in Christ. The old man is buried with Him but will rise again to eternal life. We are told we will be changed in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye.

And Jesus sends Mary to appear before the people, leaving artifacts like the tilma or cloak of Our Lady of Guadelupe.

And what can science say about this? Only superficial things. Pope Benedict had the audacity to say that we are not haphazard mistakes, but this is not just a conflict between the results of science and Christian faith and truth. The narrow view of science is only part of the picture. It is the duty of the Church not to just spread an idea but a reality - Jesus Christ. Here, on this forum, this science and this reality must be integrated.

If a Christian looks at science and also knows the reality of the Living God, he or she must compare the results of scientific inquiry with spiritual and historical reality as Pope Benedict does. And have the audacity to say we are not haphazard mistakes.

But where does this leave others who do not acknowledge the Christian reality? Our fellow human beings who believe in nothing outside of this physical reality cannot be reconciled to this view. Science and only science must lead them to a conclusion that does not include anything supernatural. Indeed, if through some unusual occurrence, they could be shown a reality that includes God, what would their answer be?

The Catholic Church is in the process of studying miracles, right now. It recognizes the fact that the supernatural God can impinge on our reality. That, as God, He can and does cause the scientifically impossible to happen. Two such miracles are required for a person to be canonized.

To ignore this, as a Christian, is to place God in a building you visit once a week. It is to deny His power. It is to deny His work in your life. It is to believe that you pray to no one.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Is it possible for a retrovirus to carry the genes of one species and insert into another species?

I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to answer that question. I suspect that the answer is usually no, because a retrovirus will insert its own genes into the host’s genome. I do know that for genetic therapy doctors insert a good human gene into a retrovirus (or similar) so that the retrovirus will then insert the good gene into the genome of a person suffering from a genetic disease.

If so, it seems that a certain gene could then suddenly appear in the genetic record of another species, appearing as if perhaps “created”.

Sudden appearance can have many explanations. Humans appeared suddenly in America but they were not created there - they migrated.

Could convergent evolution produce the same effect, but more gradually?

Probably not. Dolphins and Ichthyosaurs are both similarly streamlined, but the Dolphin streamlining is built on a mammalian genome, wheras the Ichthyosaur streamlining was built on a reptilian genome.

Have there ever been examples of one species actually taking the genetic material of another species and inserting it into yet another species?

Yes, a mosquito bite can transfer a retrovirus from one host to another. If the retrovirus can infect more than one species then that would be such a transfer. Also humans have done it, we have transferred a gene for flourescence from an octopus into a strain of lab mice.

But I guess my question would be: How could we actually tell?

That is a question for ID. We have natural mechanisms which can explain the varions horizontal gene transfers we see in nature. If there is a non-human designer operating then either the designer is operating through those same natural mechanisms or we have not yet come across any of the designer’s handiwork.

But I think it goes a little bit further than this. There are some who seem to be saying that it’s virtually impossible for God to have acted in such a way.

Different people have different ideas of God. For me the problem is that God, being omnipotent, can act in so many differrent ways that it bocomes impossible to disprove the action of God. If a hypothesis cannot be disproved, like Last Thursdayism, then it cannot be scientific. With an omnipotent God there is no way to disprove that God made a particular gene so that hypothesis cannot be scientific.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

What evidences did Richard refer to when he said that it appears as if all of creation was designed? Could you be more specific?

I’m not sure what he meant by that but the quote comes from one of his books:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, ), p. 1.

I would assume that he means that, in common sense-intuitive terms, when one looks at nature it appears that it all fits together as if designed for a purpose. The beauty of nature - varieties of wildflowers in an array of color and beautiful forms, attract bees who have a rhythm and pattern in a precise order for function, who create honey, which is pleasant to mankind and wax which has many uses.

This one (of nearly countless things in nature) appears to me as if planned by God – designed in a remarkable pattern.

I think that’s what Mr. Dawkins is referring to. It “gives the appearance” of design – but is actually the product of blind, accidental forces that have no plan, design or guidance supporting them. It’s all just an accidental combination of factors, even though it looks like design.

Perhaps you could provide some of these in point form for further discussion. I’ve read a range of book from both sides.

I’ll post these later – it has taken me a while to collect a number of them.

 

[reggieM]

I’ll post these later – it has taken me a while to collect a number of them.

Rather than give my own customized version – here’s something to start with. An Intelligent Design debate, pro and con.

opposingviews.com/questions/does-intelligent-design-have-merit

 

[Camron]

There are all very good replies. I’m going to go through them as best as I can tonight or tomorrow after prayer.

 

[Camron]

By thinking that there must be a scientific way to understand would not be possible regarding the things Jesus did.

True. But I’m not saying that we can use science to duplicate things such as the Resurrection.

However, we can use valid reasoning and scientific principles to reasonably infer that Jesus did indeed exist within 1st century Palestine, did indeed start the Christian faith, and most likely did perform miraculous things based on the testimony and endurance of the Christian faith.

I suppose these last points would be more like a soft science, or more akin to the humanities, such as psychological profiles and studies. But valid scientific principles do indeed apply to this research.

A scientist standing right next to Him and able to examine people He healed or raised from the dead would have no ability whatsoever to determine, using his five senses, and training, how any of it was done.

While I agree regarding the Resurrection and the raising of the death, I would be more cautious regarding the healing part. It is theoretically possible to have all the systems in place to analyze the miraculous event, observe which biological functions were triggered in order to bring about the healing, and possibly even duplicate the miraculous event.

For example, in the case of the healing of the servant’s ear, perhaps there is something within the biological processes of humanity that is similar to the regenerative powers of newts and salamanders for example. These amphibians can regenerate a missing tail, legs, even eyes. This remarkable ability is particularly pronounced in the larval stage. For this reason, larval salamanders are favorites for doing research on regeneration.

For years, it has been unclear as to whether this regeneration depends on a) a population of pluripotent stem cells that have resided in the animal body prepared for such an event (as occurs in the hydra) or b) the dedifferentiation of specialized cells, e.g. muscle and cartilage cells, in the stump. However, other species which seem to have this ability also seem to have pluripotent stem cells too

This cnidarian, which is an invertebrate animal, can also regenerate its entire body from cells. The cells that do the job are indeed totipotent stem cells residing in the animal’s body (which is similar to the newts and salamanders noted above). So if indeed something like this were present in the human body (which I’m pretty sure it is), and if this were the mechanism that God triggered to bring about the rapid healing, it may be theoretically possible to accelerate this natural process using scientific principles too.

It could even be suggsted that science’s failure to take these things seriously may have resulted in the lost potential to expand the medical sciences too. In other words, it may be that science is actually hindering the discovery of the truth (via the worldview attached to it), due it’s rejection of miraculous events.

The problem is we simply don’t know yet. And this hindrance can work in the opposite direction too.

Reggie and Rossum, I’ll be replying, but there’s a lot of info to cover. This may take some time.

 

[edwest2]

This type of reply is consistent with the current Bible Explanation Industry. That is, there must be a natural (non-God) explanation. This view is false and inconsistent with the truths of the Bible. God is God, he is not man.

This is an example of faith. Faith in the mind of man expressed through an idolatry of science. This is wrong.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

This type of reply is consistent with the current Bible Explanation Industry. That is, there must be a natural (non-God) explanation. This view is false and inconsistent with the truths of the Bible. God is God, he is not man.

Excuse me? Are you replying to my post when you say, “This view is false and inconsistent with the truths of the Bible”?

If so, why?

First of all, I didn’t say that there must be a natural (non-God) explanation for these healing events. You did.

I also didn’t say that Jesus used advanced medical procedures to perform healings which would be considered miraculous events to the unlearned and ignorant. Jesus, as True God and True Man, has authority over creation so much so that the entire order of the universe submits to His Will simply with a thought from His Eternal and All Pervading Consciousness.

I said that there may have been a natural process in place which God accelerated to bring forth a miracle, which God does very often do. I also said that if scientists were in place to scrupulously study these miraculous events, it could potentially inspire these scientists to produce a natural healing remedy based on the research and information they gathered by studying the miraculous event (ie., the miracle could inspire the scientists into further investigation, instead of it being the other way around).

In other words, if people were indeed present during these purely miraculous events (because, for example, no man can just “will” another man’s pluripotent stem cells to kick into overdrive, if this is indeed even possible), this would still be considered a purely miraculous event even though we could potentially point to the mechanism that was activated by God’s Will.

Just because we know that there are natural mechanisms which can explain the behaviors of the weather doesn’t mean that God is not controlling these mechanisms according to His will.

The same too with biological functions, so that even if we can point to natural mechanisms which can explain the reproductive cycle this still doesn’t mean that God is not controlling these mechanisms according to His will.

This is an example of faith. Faith in the mind of man expressed through an idolatry of science. This is wrong.

And exactly how is my post considered faith in the mind of man expressed through an idolatry of science?

If you are indeed replying to my post (which I’m still not 100% sure of yet, since you didn’t link your message with anyone’s post), then I think you need to step back and read more carefully what I am actually saying is possible rather than responding to a caricature of some “scientific absolutism” that I never actually said.

Yes, it’s still a matter of faith in God no matter how much science can reveal. No one will ever escape this part. Not even in hell.

 

[Camron]

First of all - thanks again for an excellent reply. I appreciate the thought that you put into it. I need to put more care into my own responses because I’m not as accurate as I should be.

On this case, I would think that if there is discernable evidence of the guidance of God in nature, then this is something that human beings can consider, explain and pursue.

I certainly have no problem with anyone searching for it. I see it all the time. But I do not think I can scientifically demonstrate it though

If the question is whether one thing is science or not, I don’t think that’s something that science itself can answer. It’s a philosophical foundation that gives us some agreement on what science is and what it can’t be.

Agreed. But the problem with this is that we simply don’t know the full extent of what science can actually demonstrate. It’s true that we have certain spiritual parameters which we are warned not to cross over. But many times there are certain things which do seem to come to a head between theology and science.

Agreed. A sound philosophy looks at the meaning of all things in a universal scope. Science has an important role but it’s limited to external reality.

So then how exactly does one use science to reasonably verify that God was directly involved in the speciation of life on earth?

Again, I think it’s possible that God may have specifically altered some things along the way.

He may have been very bold if He chose to, specifically taking previous forms and altering to the point that He made them into entirely different species. He is our Creator and we do have miraculous examples of events in the Bible which could conceivably be used to justify this position. Certainly the very initial creation of the universe itself fits along this pattern. It was completely created ex nihilo.

Or perhaps He nudged them a bit here and there with smaller modifications (like Laban’s sheep), cautiously and lovingly guiding it toward the creation of humanity according to His purpose in Christ. This is a view that I’m in favor of, in my own view of theistic evolutionary view. Again, there are other miraculous examples of events in the Bible which could conceivably be used to justify this position too.

Or perhaps He did indeed work in a fashion that is closer to the Deist position, albeit taking on a more “sustaining role” rather than an active participating role. And, yes, there are examples of this in the Bible too, such as Acts 4:27-28, which states…

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

…so there does appear to be Biblical passages which support this view too, that God’s power and will had decided beforehand what should happen. I honestly think God works this way too, deciding beforehand what should happen by initially determining the set of all possible variables controlling the potential outcomes of any given situation.

As with the two examples above, this would not be random either. Although it would appear random to us from our finite perspective, from God’s perspective it would be completely predetermined via contingent processes and foreknown beforehand based on the initial parameters He originally set forth.

Perhaps one problem with this whole line of debate is the insistence that God had to work one way or the other way (or even the other way) or else He is not acting as God “should”.

We can point to all three kinds of examples of the way that God creates, so perhaps He uses all three different ways of creating in unison, in a Triune fashion not much unlike God Trinitarian Nature. This seems more consistent with the grand complexity of God rather than limiting His creative power to only one of the three different options available above.

 

[Camron]

I find it hard to reconcile St. Paul’s teaching with evolutionary theory.

But is it really that difficult?

I’ve already provided one example from the Bible itself which could be used to justify the more “hands off” approach. Paul himself also says in Romans 8:28 that we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. This too could conceivably be used to justify the Biblical passage from Acts 4:27-28 which clearly states that God sometimes decided beforehand what should happen.

So long as God is the one who did it, does it really matter exactly which way He did it?

I suppose that one could say that all of nature is created by blind, accidental, natural forces – and that is an expression of God’s power that can be clearly seen.

But I don’t think that all of nature is created by blind, accidental, natural forces.

Fist of all, it seems as though the angels of God may have played a roll in sustaining these laws, according to God’s command. It may even be that the rebellious angels caused turmoil within the laws themselves, leaving them so that they appear to be randomly acting out brutally mindless carnages. This actually is a serious possibility in some sense, such as the case of Satan causing destruction to come upon Job. (cf., the windstorm that devastated Job’s family in Job 1:18-19)

Second of all, nature is not blind.

The animals can certainly see the physical world around them and they are natural. So too with the more primitive life forms, which do have some form of visual awareness too. Animals are aware of their purpose too. They are even aware of God according to the Bible.

There is even in some sense an awareness within nature, almost seemingly acting out and representing God’s will, such as with the story of the flood, or stories of hail, or storms, etc. Many of these events were viewed by the Biblical authors as God revealing His will to people via nature, usually with God angered.

The pagans seemed to have similar thoughts but, lacking revelation, and having their eyes blinded to God’s power via their own pagan worship, they were unable to see this; often confusing the things which God made for gods in their own right. (cf., The Wisdom of Sirach, which is followed up by Paul himself in Romans 1:20)

Nature is not blind. Those who do not see God’s involvement behind nature are the ones who are blind.

 

[Camron]

But that doesn’t follow as I see it. The natural laws just do whatever they do.

No they don’t. They seem to do whatever God wills them to do. More specifically, they seem to do whatever God’s power and will already decided beforehand they should do. So it is quite reasonable for God’s power and will to have decided beforehand that the nature He created should bring forth life according to His will.

I don’t really see the problem here.

There would be no reason to admire what they create, especially since it was accidental and without purpose or plan.

Why not? I can think of plenty of reasons to be thankful for God creating nature. Certainly one can admire God’s handiwork.

Furthermore, it’s not accidental in the sense that we think of car accidents. It’s more likely accidental in the sense of the Eucharistic accidents. And just as science cannot determine the real presence of Christ within the accidents of the Eucharist, it seems most likely to me that science likewise cannot determine the real presence of Christ involved in the creation of life on earth.

In addition to this, when one makes the claim that there is no purpose for life, they are broadcasting their own philosophical arguments over the valid scientific research being done. I think you already know this too.

I don’t know why we would need science to prove this at all.

That’s my point. We don’t need science to prove this. It can’t.

Beauty is evident to the human soul – through human intuition and perception. If science cannot prove that there is beauty in the world, then this clearly indicates some severe limitations on what that particular science can do. As such, how can it provide theories on the origins of things that possess beauty?

And if science cannot prove that there is beauty in the world, then this clearly indicates some severe limitations on what that particular science can do when attempting to verify the existence of God too.

Do we turn to scientists to learn how to produce the great works of art – the works of Shakespeare or Michangelo? (One evolutionary-defender here of CAF answered “yes” to this).

I suppose we could use science to teach others how to make the beautiful artworks we see. This would be more of a technical application of scientific principles when attempting to duplicate or mimic the creation of artworks.

But no, I don’t think that we can use science to determine whether something is beautiful or not. That comes from the heart.

We would have to say that blind natural laws created works of beauty greater than anything the intelligence of man could create. But if so, why doesn’t “random art work” create anything of similar beauty?

Some random artwork is beautiful in my opinion. But I’m more for the photorealistic paintings.

Great art is the product of intelligence and imagination. We see great design, color, harmony, shape, meaning, power, contrast, balance, and more in nature. As I view it, this is an argument for Intelligent Design vs Darwinian processes.

But by pointing out that color, harmony, shape, meaning, power, contrast, balance, and more actually exists in nature, the more we see that nature is not as random and chaotic and some claim. There are indeed patterns within nature that have predictable consequences when the combinations are repeated. Evolution didn’t happen, in my opinion, because nature is random. Evolution happened, in my opinion, because nature is ordered, just as God intended it to be (and continues to sustain, and sometimes even steps in and directly interacts with on spiritual/physical interactional level).

I don’t think that ID has been that sweeping in its conclusions. If someone has said something as you’ve stated it here, then I would agree with your questioning of this matter.

Isn’t this what Behe has done?

I find the evidence to be convincing, myself. I’ve read the counter-arguments and those do not seem strong in my view either.

See, and this is the crux of the matter. What many claim as proof should be properly called conviction, or more accurately what actually convinces us. I am convinced that God used evolutionary processes to bring forth life on earth. I don’t really see any strong reasons why this is not the case either.

 

[reggieM]

I will start with your last reply and work backwards …

No they don’t. They seem to do whatever God wills them to do. More specifically, they seem to do whatever God’s power and will already decided beforehand they should do. So it is quite reasonable for God’s power and will to have decided beforehand that the nature He created should bring forth life according to His will.

I don’t really see the problem here.

Well, I think we should look again at the title of this thread. We’re talking about “Guided Evolution” (among other things) and that poses a problem because it suggests that there could be “Unguided Evolution” also.

Unguided evolution would be a matter of “the natural laws create everything”. This is like an avalanche – some rocks roll down the mountain due to natural laws. This is an “unguided process”. If when the rocks reached the bottom they formed themselves into a statue of the Pieta – then we’d have reason to think that the process was “guided” somehow. Because normally, the natural laws don’t create specified complex objects like a sublime work of figurative art (although evolutionary theory would say it is “possible” that rocks could do that – so where are the limits to what science, natural law or evolution can produce?).

Why not? I can think of plenty of reasons to be thankful for God creating nature. Certainly one can admire God’s handiwork.

Again, I don’t think you’re following my example. One does not normally think that an avalanche is a “guided” process. It’s merely the function of natural laws. Additionally, we do not think it is evidence of intelligent design because rocks can roll down a mountain due to explainable laws. The micro-machines found in a cell, however, are inexplicable by evolutionary theory, and that kind of specified complexity is only the product of intelligent causes as far as we know. Therefore, that should be the proposed cause of such things until proven otherwise.

Furthermore, it’s not accidental in the sense that we think of car accidents. It’s more likely accidental in the sense of the Eucharistic accidents.

I think in this case, it is accidental like a car accident – although more like a wind storm causing a tree to fall on a car, since a car accident does have an intelligent cause to some degree (humans are driving). But a wind storm causing a tree to fall is accidental. It is also “blind” because it just falls due to the natural law. If the tree acted in some manner that could not be explained by natural laws, then we would question if it was accidental.

And just as science cannot determine the real presence of Christ within the accidents of the Eucharist, it seems most likely to me that science likewise cannot determine the real presence of Christ involved in the creation of life on earth.

That’s a good analogy for the difference between the substance of things (which is directly created by God, but is invisible) and the accidents of things that we can see and measure. But not all of God’s handiwork are done at the substantial level (unseen). We profess that God has created all things seen and unseen. We have to reconcile our profession of Faith each Sunday, with the notion that (supposedly, according to the materialist position) there is no evidence God’s work to be observed in nature.

But again, the specified complexity of cells, cellular machines, DNA coded language, and irreducible complexity found in nature are all evidences that God’s design can be observed and analysed scientifically.

 

[reggieM]

And if science cannot prove that there is beauty in the world, then this clearly indicates some severe limitations on what that particular science can do when attempting to verify the existence of God too.

Ok, but I think you’re stretching the concept beyond the limits that ID proposes. It’s not a matter of “verifying the existence of God” but of merely recognizing some evidence that there is an intelligence at work in nature – something beyond the natural laws acting in an “unguided” manner. In other words, there are things in nature which the natural laws cannot produce and which show, by analogy, similar features to what we know is only produced by intelligence. Specified, complex works of beauty and art, for example are produced by inteligence.

But no, I don’t think that we can use science to determine whether something is beautiful or not. That comes from the heart.

Yes, it comes from the heart and human intuition which God gave us all. We can recognize beauty and respond to it. Science cannot help us much at all with this.

A recent film is very illustrative of the meaning of Intelligent Design science. “My Kid Could Draw That” came out a couple of years ago and it’s about a family that put some paintings in a gallery that were said to be done by their 3 year old daughter (it’s an interesting film worth seeing). The paintings were very abstract – almost like Jackson Pollack. But in time, they got a huge audience and collectors paid a lot for them.
As the film progresses, however, the filmmakers and others became suspicious about whether the child did the work or not.
Through what I would call an application of intelligent design theory, the abstract paintings were scrutinized. In the end, it became obvious that the child’s father helped with the paintings. How did we know? The lines and shapes looked “adult”. When the child was filmed on her own, her lines and shapes looked “childish”. As a result, the entire thing was considered a fraud in the end.

This is a great example of the intuition that we have in viewing art, and also how we can detect design and intelligence. In this case, the viewers could see the difference between adult abstract art and a child’s abstractions. Was this “science”? There’s no reason why the art work could not have been analyzed scientifically and a conclusion reached. For example, on a big canvas, if there was a brush stroke that continued for over 3 feet without wavering or a break – it would be evidence of an adult’s work. Why? Because an adult’s arm has the reach and strength to paint that long, while a three year old child can only paint a continuous line that is a foot (or so) long.

That is scientific analysis to determine the nature of intelligent design in something that is very subtle.

The same is true with something like Stonehenge. Also, the bacterial flagellum shows some incredible features that point to intelligent design. This could be falsified by having someone show how evolution could have produced this feature, but thus far this hasn’t happened. In fact, it’s very difficult to show how Darwinian processes (natural selection mainly) work at all in biochemistry. “Environmental factors” are not relevant at the biochemical level – obviously not as ordinary Darwinian theory proposes with changes in climate or weather causing shortages in food supplies, etc.

But by pointing out that color, harmony, shape, meaning, power, contrast, balance, and more actually exists in nature, the more we see that nature is not as random and chaotic and some claim.

That seems true, but that’s a conflict with evolutionary theory which is really driven by random events (mutations and environment). Natural selection is the “non-random” factor, but that cannot explain all of what you just described in nature.

We can see, by analogy, that nature posseses beauty which is equivalent (and greater) than the greatest art that we can produce by human intelligence. But the evolutionary process does not predict this kind of beauty at all. It predicts only “what will survive is what will survive”. A struggle for survival by a species does not produce beauty, harmony, balance, color … etc.

Evolution didn’t happen, in my opinion, because nature is random. Evolution happened, in my opinion, because nature is ordered, just as God intended it to be (and continues to sustain, and sometimes even steps in and directly interacts with on spiritual/physical interactional level).

This is a reasonable proposition. It goes against standard Darwinian orthodoxy. But more importantly, it’s evidence of intelligent design itself.

You said:

I am only questioning the proposed scientific evidence which claims that it has scientifically verified that intelligence was directly, tangibly and measurably involved in the creation of all species on this earth.

Isn’t this what Behe has done?

No, Behe’s proposal is far more modest than what you suggested. He really proposes just:

1. The power of evolution to “create” has limits.
2. There is evidence that some aspects of nature indicate intelligence rather than evolutionary processes as the cause

To conclude that intelligence was involved in the creation of all species would require much more study and work. In every case, it would have to be shown that evolution could not account for changes (or at least the evidence for evolution is shaky).

 

[reggieM]

But is it really that difficult?

I’ve already provided one example from the Bible itself which could be used to justify the more “hands off” approach. Paul himself also says in Romans 8:28 that we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

I’m not disagreeing, but I don’t really follow what you mean with that passage.

So long as God is the one who did it, does it really matter exactly which way He did it?

In some ways, no it doesn’t matter. But in other ways it does. God could have created an illusion that makes it look (to those who believe it) that everything evolved when in reality He created everything in a big Poof. But people do not like that because “it makes God a deceiver”.

But I consider this also. Given

1. the Bible says nothing about things evolving, and on the contrary, says definitely that God created things directly
2. Jesus did not say that humans evolved or that life evolved from non-life. On the contrary, he said that God “clothes the lilies” – God is the designer who created the beauty of those flowers (greater beauty than Solomon had in all his glory).
3. The near unanimous opinion in every religion in the world is that “God’s power can be seen in nature”. Primative religions, Judiasm, Christianity, Islam – this is obvious to believers. The beauty, order, power and symmetry of nature is a sign of God’s creative power.
4. Nature “looks like it was designed” even in the opinion of an atheist like Richard Dawkins. I think you agree that nature looks beautiful and ordered in many ways – it looks like it was designed. We praise God for his amazing gifts that we can see and experience in nature (and in ourselves).

Ok, given all of that – if it was true that God didn’t design all of nature, but that it’s all just an accidental product of random mutations and natural selection …

… then wouldn’t it be right to say “that makes God a deceiver”?

In other words, God deceived us by making it appear that His intelligence was involved (and His personality can be seen), but in reality it’s just random physical forces at work.

But I don’t think that all of nature is created by blind, accidental, natural forces.

Well, I think that’s where you differ with the vast majority of the scientific community.

Fist of all, it seems as though the angels of God may have played a roll in sustaining these laws, according to God’s command.

Now I’m in full agreement with you here and I’m very glad to see this consideration.

It may even be that the rebellious angels caused turmoil within the laws themselves, leaving them so that they appear to be randomly acting out brutally mindless carnages. This actually is a serious possibility in some sense, such as the case of Satan causing destruction to come upon Job. (cf., the windstorm that devastated Job’s family in Job 1:18-19)

I find this to be very good also.

There is even in some sense an awareness within nature, almost seemingly acting out and representing God’s will, such as with the story of the flood, or stories of hail, or storms, etc. Many of these events were viewed by the Biblical authors as God revealing His will to people via nature, usually with God angered.

I do not think these considerations are of secondary importance in this topic. This is the kind of wisdom that gives science real meaning, in my view.

The pagans seemed to have similar thoughts but, lacking revelation, and having their eyes blinded to God’s power via their own pagan worship, they were unable to see this; often confusing the things which God made for gods in their own right. (cf., The Wisdom of Sirach, which is followed up by Paul himself in Romans 1:20)

Yes, absolutely. I see this as further evidence that God created human beings with the gifts and powers to see God’s presence in nature. Our intelligence is oriented towards the things of God – since He created us, we recognize Him also.

Nature is not blind. Those who do not see God’s involvement behind nature are the ones who are blind.

I couldn’t agree more and I only wonder how your thinking could be so close to mine on these things, and yet seemingly at odds in other similar topics.