This is an e-mail I received from a reader.
I was having dinner the other day with Greg Koukl and friends, when the topic of THEISTIC EVOLUTION came up. Greg Koukl shared the following insight on this view in his usual clear-thinking manner…
Many people like to invoke theistic evolution as an explanation of the origin of life. Theistic evolution refers to the belief that God used evolution as a method of creation; God created life and then stood back and left things to run on their own though the laws of nature. If God intervened at all, it was only when absolutely necessary. While this explanation sounds really nice on the surface, the devil is in the details.
Simply put, theistic evolution is a self-refuting idea. An idea that commits suicide, so to speak. The ‘evolution’ part of theistic evolution is by definition a process that is blind, undirected and left to chance (natural selection). The ‘theistic’ part of theistic evolution, on the other hand, is by definition directed and personal (design). How do you reconcile these two opposing ideas? Clearly you can’t, since they are mutually exclusive. You simply cannot have something that is both undirected and directed.
It’s like asking the question: “How do you boil water?”. Someone could give the response: “Well, you take a pot, fill it with water, put the lid on, put the pot on the stove, turn on the stove, and add a leprechaun”. The question could then be asked: “What happens if I don’t add the leprechaun?”, to which the response would be “well…the water still boils”. The objective can be achieved without adding the leprechaun, which is therefore unnecessary. In the same way, both components of theistic evolution can, in theory at least, provide for the origin of life. In my opinion theistic evolution is a view held by those who have bought into Darwinism but don’t want to let go of God. Therefore, they proclaim both to be true. Unfortunately for them, the manner in which these two processes work (undirected versus directed) are contradictory and cannot both be true. The resulting mixture, theistic evolution, is not even an option, and proponents of this view should be called on this flaw in their thinking.
Below I’ll give my thoughts on theistic evolution.
My thoughts
Theistic evolution is basically atheistic evolution, with an unnecessary fairy tale riding on top. It’s like Santa Claus and Christmas. A child’s parents put the presents under the tree. If you film the tree, you see parents putting presents under the tree – that’s what actually happens, and who actually does the work. Santa Claus is a myth that makes children feel good – the concept of Santa Claus does no work putting presents under the tree in reality. And that’s the same role God plays in theistic evolution – he does no work in reality.
The dividing line between theists and atheists is whether the natural world shows any OBJECTIVE evidence of an intelligent agent at work. If a person claims to be theistic, but states that there is no OBJECTIVE evidence of intelligent causes acting in nature, then that person is actually an atheist. Theism is either real or it is nothing. I am not interested in personal preferences and personal delusions – I only care what is scientifically demonstrable.
The scientific evidence for intelligent design (fine-tuning, origin of DNA, Cambrian explosion, habitability, irreducible complexity, molecular machines, etc.) shows evidence of an intelligent agent causing effects in nature. It’s not up to our opinions to decide if an intelligent agent has acted – it’s the way the world is, regardless of what we want – or need – to believe.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“The ‘evolution’ part of theistic evolution is by definition a process that is blind, undirected and left to chance (natural selection).”
Not necessarily. The term evolution means, and can mean, any number of things. It is a very malleable term. Darwin originally eschewed the word, because, in his day, evolution had the sense of a purposeful unfolding, as in an acorn that becomes an oak tree.
Can an acorn become an oak tree without direct divine input or intervention? If it can, does this imply materialism or atheism? It does not. We can say that oak trees are the result of a completely natural process. And we can also say that God causes the acorn to become an oak tree. We don’t need to try to identify “the hand of God” in the process, because God is the intelligent and purposeful author of the process itself.
I would say that while theistic evolution need not be a contradiction in terms, theistic darwinism is, and, to the extent that the theistic evolutionists are darwinists, then theirs is a self-contradictory position.
I am not arguing for the truth of evolution here. I am saying that God could have set a natural process in motion that would result in life as we see it — and that this could properly be called theistic evolution. It could even be a scientific paradigm that uses the term “random”, because, to our eyes, it would appear to be so, and the subtle directions that God might use to push it one way or another would be no more discernible than when God intervenes to push natural weather systems one way or another.
Weather’s perhaps a good analogy. Most western Christians probably have no problem with scientists positing weather as a natural system that does not require a deity to make it work. At the same time, we would insist on two things: a) weather as a whole is a creation of God, and when it thunders or lightings we are within our rights to claim that God is the creator, author, designer, or producer of these effects, and b) God may in fact directly intervene from time to time to push the weather in one direction or not — and his agency would be indiscernible to us (unless it is Jesus in a boat commanding a storm to cease). To us, it would just appear to remain a natural process subject to “random” variations.
Let me repeat. I am not arguing for the truth of evolution here. I think the evidence supports the view that God both a) put life forms in place that had intelligent adaptable evolutionary mechanisms designed into them, and b) that God at times directly intervened to create new life forms (either out of whole cloth or as miraculous adaptations of previous forms).
One final point. Unlike apes, I am created, by God, in his image.
Of that, I am certain.
LikeLike
I think you’d want to talk to thoughtful theistic evolutionists. I’m not one, but I’ve taken the time to talk with some thoughtful ones, and ask them what they think, what God’s involvement was, and what they think of the “blind, undirected, and left to chance” ideas.
Thanks for a thoughtful response Richard. Yours is consistent with any number of Christian theistic evolutionists I’ve spoken with.
I think it’s this sort of thing where we might be able to say, “Oh, so you’re talking about God the creator, and we just disagree on the mechanisms by which he created, which, incidentally are not only not spelled out in scripture, but scripture appears to have no interest in discussing… Good stuff brother!”
LikeLike
I think Koukl is wrong here I think, for two reasons.
1. First, he sees a semantic contradiction between the words theistic and evolution. Not necessarily – the first word is used adjectivally to modify the second so that the usual meaning of the noun is different. So the ‘undirected’ aspect of the word evolution gets removed by the force of the ‘theistic’ adjective! Which is of course why people use the word ‘theistic’ – if we don’t intend to change the meaning of the word in some way, just using the word evolution would suffice.
2. Secondly, just because there are random activities within a system which are blind and undirected, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the system as a whole whole wasn’t designed. Ever see a Jackson Pollock painting?
My last issue would be with the word ‘undirected’ – to be able to state emphatically that a biological system was undirected you would have to know in advance that there wasn’t a designer, as well as knowing exactly what kind of biological systems and processes a designer would create, if he were to do so.
So I think the conflict here is based on something baseless – the Darwinist’s belief that cosmic teleology can be inferred from biological systems.
LikeLike
Great discussion.
Richard,
Just one question as i’m working my way through this issue as logically and diligently as I can. You said in your comment the following:
“I think the evidence supports the view that God both a) put life forms in place that had intelligent adaptable evolutionary mechanisms designed into them, and b) that God at times directly intervened to create new life forms (either out of whole cloth or as miraculous adaptations of previous forms).”
and gave an example before this summary statement of an acorn and an oak in which you said:
“We can say that oak trees are the result of a completely natural process. And we can also say that God causes the acorn to become an oak tree. We don’t need to try to identify “the hand of God” in the process, because God is the intelligent and purposeful author of the process itself.”
It seems you are still making a distinction between the creation of the process and the working out of the process. You seem to have kept the intent of the “theistic darwinism” as you put it but moved one step farther back to say that God created natural processes and stepped away, but reserves the right to intervene whenever He chooses. Let me be quick to say it just appears that way based on your comment so you may correct me if i’m in error.
How do you reconcile that stance with scripture such as Colossians 1:15-20. I understand your point about the term evolution being dependent on the definition, but my problem with theistic evolution even as you have described it is that taken as a whole it seems God is intimately involved not just in the act of creation but in the sustaining and overseeing of the creation in every detail.
Descriptively, in your acorn to oak example I see God creating all of nature and being involved in each and every step of development from acorn to oak. It seems that is what WK was getting at in his comments that your description of a “completely natural process” rules out by definition the supernatural.
Again, I may have misunderstood your position, and I probably did an even worse job being clear with my questioning of the position. In trying to work out how I come down on this issue, I suppose the easiest way to put the question is what part do you think God plays in the intricate details of natural processes? Or another way, what do you mean when you say “completely natural process”? Do you see God being able to step back and just let things work without His hand being in the inner workings, but just to a different degree than the “blind watchmaker” as others have described?
LikeLike
Great question! The post I gave was “simplified” because, as I understand it, reality is more complex than our minds’ ability to process it, and therefore, all our attempts to fully grasp it or communicate it are approximations.
You are absolutely right.
The mechanical view that God created the world and it is now capable of running on its own steam independently of God is an incomplete understanding. As Christians, we believe that God not only created the world, but that he sustains it on a moment-by-moment basis. This blurs the line between natural and and supernatural, doesn’t it! And it puts the idea of a supernatural “intervention” by God in a different light because He is supernaturally sustaining, and directing even, the universe at all times!
Problem is — this view is incompatible with science, not in the sense that it cannot be true because science disproves it, but in the sense that to do science, you have to posit a natural world that runs without supernatural sustenance or interference. Put it another way, the supernatural sustenance is undetectable, and the interference makes scientists nervous! So, to me, doing science is an approximate way of approximating reality. It is like we do science by looking in a rear-view mirror that has a sticker on it: “Warning: reality is more complex than it appears!”
In the light of this discussion about God’s sustaining hand, evolution would be a process that God not only created and put in place, but sustains. It is a very small move to go from “sustains” to directs!
Again, to emphasize, I am not arguing for the truth of evolution here. I am just trying to think through the issue.
LikeLike
Richard,
Thanks for the clarification, I too am trying to think through the issue. You’re also right about description of the supernatural. It’s quite difficult to make a univocally or equivocally naturalistic statements using analogical language.
LikeLike
And I agree with you for the most part!
Now reflect on this. When you are dreaming what sustains your dream? Answer: You!
When there was nothing but God, He created reality by merely thinking it, because He didn’t have anything else to work on. He created the Universe by thinking it into being. Much like you sustain your dream by thinking it to reality. This reality is sustained by the Thought of God…
LikeLike
Hi Teralek. He just “thought” it? He didn’t think it and then, you know, “speak it” into being?! I think the Hebrew Scriptures went with “spoke” and “word” instead of mind and thought for a reason — the Logos.
LikeLike
I don’t base my affirmations on the Bible most of the time. Speaking or thinking is a mere semantic thing because God neither speaks or thinks like us. If God spoke the Universe into being like us it would be necessary for air to exist so God could be able to speak.
LikeLike
“If God spoke the Universe into being like us it would be necessary for air to exist so God could be able to speak.”
Thanks for the howler!
LikeLike
Has it ever occured to you that God knows the outcome of random processses? I dont know how this could slip your mind. He used the same processes in the betrayal of Christ. He weaved together the free random acts of man to achieve the greatest failure and triumph in human history. If God starts something–does He not know where it ends? Does he just guess? Come on
So what we have here is a failure of imagination–probably due to bias. Personally, I dont think it was random—but Im not so biased to come to illogical conclusion that God cant deal with randomness. Our very thoughts are random. God knows all things in advance–he can use randomness. Your portraying God as some inept man.
I dont know exactly what God did but I dont allow bias to control me–Im not for any particular position because its all moot to me–it has no bearing whatsoever on salvation. Let the fanatics argue while I focus on Jesus Christ. But lets not allow bias, semantics, and illogical thoughts into our discussions and portray them wisdom–that is just so lame.
LikeLike
a few books from the christian evolution position worth reading. 1)”Darwinism Defeated?The Johnson/Lamoureux Debate on biological Origins” -I think Lamouruex wins this debate but read it for yourself. 2)”I love Jesus and I accept Evolution” by Denis Lamoureux. 3)”The Sacred Cosmos:Christian Faith and the Challenge of Naturalism” by Terence Nichols 4)”Three views of Creation and Evolution” edited by JP Moreland. The problem I find with much of STR stuff (I have been reading Koukl since the late 90’s and benefited from his columbo tactic, etc..) is that they try to over generalize the argument making the argument appear more black and white than it actually is.
LikeLike
I don’t see a contradiction between God and evolution either. Surely, an all-knowing and all-powerful God can create the universe in a way that he knows what the outcome of evolution will be.
Say I set up a line of dominos and pushed the first one down, although the other dominoes fall without me intervening, I still caused them to fall, didn’t I? This is the same way I see evolution (and the universe as a whole). God puts it into motion and then it carrys on without him intervening. That doesn’t mean he didn’t cause, or not intend its effects.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone commenting on this post in favor of TE understands the issue so I will reframe it.
1) Is the development of life guided or unguided objectively? Random means UNGUIDED. It’s RANDOM. The outcome is not known in advance nor is it affected by any agent.
2) Can the effects of an intelligence be observed in nature using the scientific method?
A theistic evolutionist like Lamoureux, Van Till, Ayala believe is that the development of life is unguided, and that the effects of intelligent causes cannot be detected, (except by wishing and hoping in the Easter bunny).
Theistic evolution is atheism. What ACTUALLY HAPPENED is that God didn’t do anything, and that he left no OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that he did do it. It’s atheism.
We need to stop talking about what God can and can’t do, and talk about whether natural mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to create the diversity of life. Theistic evolutionists say that natural mechanisms are sufficient and God does nothing and that an intelligence is not needed nor detectable using scientific methods.
LikeLike
” Is the development of life guided or unguided objectively?”
I’m an atheist, but I don’t necessarily think there is a conflict between these two things, assuming God exists. For example, let us suppose it is part of God’s plan that you win the lottery. So you buy a ticket, and the lottery commission picks the numbers at random, and it comes out to exactly the numbers that are on your ticket, just as God ordained. So are we to say the numbers were chosen at random, or were they a preordained and designed outcome?
Well, in my view giving an either/or answer seems really inadequate to describe the answer. In one sense, the numbers were genuinely chosen at random (i.e. the lottery did everything they always do), in another they were not, because they were the numbers that God intended to come up. In actuality, it seems the only adequate answer is both. So in answering the question “Is biological complexity best explained by law, chance, or design?” the theistic evolutionist can confidently answer without contradiction “All of the above.”
” Can the effects of an intelligence be observed in nature using the scientific method?”
Possibly. But if it can, no ID proponent has offered a genuinely rigorous mathematical or philosophical methodology for doing so (though Dembski has made good efforts). And if they succeed (which I am of course open to), and conclusions they reach will be wholly metaphysical, and therefore can’t be treated as a meaningful competitor to any genuinely scientific theory.
“Theistic evolution is atheism. What ACTUALLY HAPPENED is that God didn’t do anything, and that he left no OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that he did do it. It’s atheism.”
Why is it atheism? Again, do you think its atheism because evolution is an unguided, non-telic process?
Well let me ask you this: Do you believe that nuclear fusion can be explained wholly by a non-telic, mindless process, or do you think every time atoms fuse it requires the intelligent, divine hand of God to reach down and smash them together? If fusion can be explained by natural processes, does that make you a “Theistic Fusist”? Is “Theistic Fusism” atheism?
The truth is that you almost certainly believe in countless processes that can be explained entirely via natural mechanisms (even if those mechanisms were ultimately designed by God). Just as theistic evolutionists believe that biologically complexity can be explained entirely by natural mechanisms (even if evolution was ultimately designed by God).
If a theist who believes in mindless, unguided evolution basically an atheist, then can you say the same about a theist who believes in mindless, unguided electro-magnetism?
LikeLike
JFT: Good even-handed points. Random. What does it really mean? When you roll the dice, what happens? I believe there are three possibilities:
1. The outcome is entirely chance based. Cf. Ecclesiastes: “”but time and chance happen to them all” (9:11).”
2. The LORD directs the outcome — but in a manner that is so subtle that, to us, it appears undirected and “random”. (Scripture for this at bottom of post.)
Here’s where I go weird:
3. Demon-based. I once played a board game, and the results were so bizarre that I was convinced and remain convinced that a demonic spirit was at work.
So, the issue of evolution is, at least partly ontological — the meaning and underlying reality of “random” in a theistic world, and epistemic — how can we know what is truly random vs. what merely appears to be random?
Here’s the Scripture list:
New International Version (©1984)
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
New Living Translation (©2007)
We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall.
English Standard Version (©2001)
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The dice are thrown, but the LORD determines every outcome.
King James Bible
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
American King James Version
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
American Standard Version
The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah.
Bible in Basic English
A thing may be put to the decision of chance, but it comes about through the Lord.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord.
Darby Bible Translation
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole decision is of Jehovah.
English Revised Version
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
Webster’s Bible Translation
The lot is cast into the lap: but the whole disposing of it is from the LORD.
World English Bible
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Yahweh.
Young’s Literal Translation
Into the centre is the lot cast, And from Jehovah is all its judgment!
This verse is in the context of Israel’s covenant with the Lord, so it may be that in that context the outcome was dictated by Jehovah, and in other contexts my options stated above might apply.
LikeLike
“1) Is the development of life guided or unguided objectively? Random means UNGUIDED. It’s RANDOM. The outcome is not known in advance nor is it affected by any agent.”
Middle knowledge solves this problem because it is conceivable God considered many many worlds with different evolutionary out comes and actualized a world where intelligent, morally capable beings *would* exist. Within this system it would seem random but to God it was a very explicit act of creating this world.
LikeLike
Gotta leave room for acts of God. Injection of information. Creating us in his image. Think billiard table analogy.
Analogy One: God sets up the table and lets off one almighty slow-motion shot™ that results in all the balls going into the pockets, and, voila, … us!
Analogy Two: Sets the table, lets off a shot, subtlety directs the balls via slight variations in the table, slight reverberations on the table, a whiff of wind here, a slight shake there, slight variations in the balls; plus, if/when the balls stop at a certain point, let’s off another shot (miraculous intervention), does his sustaining thing, and, keeps shooting until he gets the results he wants.
He is also free to do more extreme things like add another ball to the table — it’s his table, his balls, his cue, and… he is God! (Cf. Job)
Isn’t this closer to the impression we get from Genesis, God’s work-week of shaping the rough creation into something habitable by humans?
For some reason, the theistic evolutionists seem to want to stick to Analogy A and for some incomprehensible (to me) reason, act in revulsion at the thought of Analogy Two — you would think they would love and be excited by the information-laden implications of intelligent design!
It makes me think they are fully darwinian and less fully Christian.
LikeLike
Richard, I didn’t really mean you when I was mean. Your comment was different, and if you even mention information, then I know you are not a TE.
Here are the questions:
1) Can information be built up by naturalistic mechanisms like mutation and selection, in the first living cell?
2) Can we infer from life OBJECTIVELY that an intelligence was needed to sequence the amino acides and proteins?
If you say “no” to 1, and “yes” to 2) then you are NOT a theistic evolutionist. Guys like Denis Lamoureux, Ken Miller, Larry Arnhart, Ernan McMullin, etc. will never sign off on the need for intelligent agency (1) and the fact that the acts of the intelligence are detectable apart from subjective faith, using scientific methods (2).
You cannot create a functional living organism by shuffling chemicals – randomness doesn’t work in the time available. It’s not a question of whether you believe or not – it’s a question of science. Can natural mechanisms create in an unguided way? If they can, then no God is needed – so don’t add him when he is not needed. If they can’t, then an intelligent cause is needed to explain the effect.
LikeLike
Didn’t sense any meanness, and never thought you meant me, WK!
LikeLike
“1) Can information be built up by naturalistic mechanisms like mutation and selection, in the first living cell?”
Well, since God is the Author of all things “naturalistic”, I would say yes, this would not be beyond his abilities.
Selection is trivial; what lives, lives; what dies, dies. The issue is mechanism. We use the terms random, and accidental. Scientists are now discovering that life emerges by, at a minimum, chance plus laws, i.e., necessity.
Let me rephrase the question. Could a God, with whom nothing is impossible, create naturalistic mechanisms that produce the life-results he wishes?
Further, could he design directional and purposive mechanisms which nonetheless appear to the untrained eye to be random?
2) Can we infer from life OBJECTIVELY that an intelligence was needed to sequence the amino acides and proteins?
Yes. The question is when and how was this sequencing done? Was it done on-the-spot, as-needed, or was it pre-programmed into the naturalistic processes based on deep laws of nature that are beyond our present grasp?
And, since God upholds all things, isn’t the division between natural and supernatural a bit arbitrary?
LikeLike
Richard, I’m not interested in hypotheticals of what God could and could not do. I am interested in what the science shows. I don’t really care about religion or religious language about what god is powerful enough to do. That’s angels on the head of a pin.
So I am going to ask you again, clearly:
1) Can information be built up by naturalistic mechanisms like mutation and selection, in the first living cell?
Do not use the word God in your response.
I’ll rephrase my second question and ask it again.
2) Based on what we know about the sequencing capabilities of naturalistic processes, can we infer from life OBJECTIVELY that an intelligence was needed to sequence the amino acids and proteins?
Do not use the word God in your response.
God did not write this comment, I did. I used my mind to select letters. DNA is a sequence of letters. What I need to know is whether natural processes can sequence letters, given X amount of material, reacting randomly at speed Y for Z period of time. That is a yes or no question. Can naturalism do the job, or do we need an intelligence to select parts into a sequence? Totally apart from faith, can we rule out naturalism?
Either the development of life was GUIDED or it was UNGUIDED. It can’t be both. And theistic evolutions think it was OBJECTIVELY UNGUIDED. That’s what their view is after you strip away the leprechaun-talk. What REALLY HAPPENED is that God didn’t do anything that we can know using science.
LikeLike
“1) Can information be built up by naturalistic mechanisms like mutation and selection, in the first living cell?”
Not if mutation is an unintelligently-designed mechanism as darwinists suppose.
2) Based on what we know about the sequencing capabilities of naturalistic processes, can we infer from life OBJECTIVELY that an intelligence was needed to sequence the amino acids and proteins?”
Yes. Either directly, or by creating a process that achieved the desired results.
By naturalistic processes you seem to mean processes that are godless in derivation and execution, i.e., naturalistic processes as understood and articulated by atheists, materialists, and darwinists.
When Christians use the term naturalistic processes, they usually infuse the term with a different sense.
Does a man’s signature imply a man? Yes it does. Is a man’s signature “proof” that the man produced it? No, it is not. Can a machine sign a man’s signature? Yes it can. Can it do so without an intelligent designer that stands behind it? No, it cannot.
* * *
LikeLike
Alright, now I am clear on your view. Thank you.
LikeLike
WK, It is easy to put all who claim to be theistic evolutionists in the same boat but that is simply not true or fair. I think I am right when I say that Behe holds to some form of evolution as many other proponents of ID do. Much of the ID debate is not evolution or not evolution but over the mechanism of evolution. natural selection or something else? What have you read by Lamoureux? He calls his position “directed evolution”. Lamoureux says,”Evolutionary creation claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained, sustained and design-reflecting evolutionary process …..Evolution is a planned purpose driven natural process.” I do not think that most evolutionary creationist have a problem with design but the problem is with the sudden appearance approach to particular created things.I think that Plantinga has sufficiently demonstrated that if evolution is true then naturalism and atheism are false. My guess is that the majority (I said majority)of Christian anti-evolutionists have not read a single full length book on the evidence for evolution. I like your blog because you encourage people to think and to consider evidence. We cannot simply listen to debates and read the discovery institute, AG and think that is all there is to it.We have got to read all sides of the debate. Right?
LikeLike
I own the debate book between Johnson and Lamoureux, and I read Lamoureux. I’m really not interested in his attaching religious words to a fully naturalistic account of the development on life. I specified my two conditions for being a theist. What more can I say?
Did you read the original post by Andrew? You like Lamoureux because he uses God talk to describe a fully materialistic scenario of life’s origin. But he might just as easily have attributed creation to the benevolent actions of leprechauns. God didn’t DO ANYTHING that we can detect using the methods of science. That’s the same as atheism. His fluffy religious language doesn’t change the fact that he is a functional atheist.
LikeLike
“God didn’t DO ANYTHING that we can detect using the methods of science.”
We don’t even need science to detect God’s handiwork. The heavens declare the glory of God, and if we can’t see it, it is because we are blind, not because the evidence is anything but blindingly obvious.
So, if it should turn out that “God didn’t DO ANYTHING that we can detect using the methods of science”, this would be a reflection on the limitations of science, a man-made enterprise based on a preference for empirical evidence and materialistic methodological assumptions, not on God.
Having said this, I agree with you that the scientific evidence points towards information, intelligence, and design — the heavens (and the cell) declare the glory of God.
LikeLike
The reason I am being hard on you is because I don’t want to leave this up to faith – I want to do the science and see where it leads. If it leads to a Creator and a Designer (kalam and fine-tuning) who created life and different animals (origin of biological information and Cambrian explosion) then let’s say that. Let’s get to the point where atheism is widely acknowledged as being contradicted by science, and let’s be clear that the reason why people embrace atheism is because they prefer to pursue pleasure and that they want to avoid the demands of a relationship with the agent – or should I say Agent – who science has clearly revealed OBJECTIVELY based on the evidence. Let the atheism have blind faith because of their emotional needs. Let them own it. And let us Christians keep the knowledge and evidence for ourselves.
LikeLike
OK, but let’s be aware of the importance of carefully considering and defining terms, such as evolution, random, naturalistic, etc.
Having caveated my way through this discussion, you should know that I am in the ID camp, but, there’s still room to be aware of e.g., the epistemic limits of the human mind and science, and the communicative limits of human language when the task is describing reality. Plus,leaving room for mystery (cf. Job).
But really, when you see someone’s signature on a piece of paper the only question left is: did the guy create it directly or use a signature-writing machine.
LikeLike