http://biologos.org/blog en Copyright 2012 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-wonder-of-the-universe-caution-design-arguments-ahead http://biologos.org/blog/the-wonder-of-the-universe-caution-design-arguments-ahead Roger A. Sawtelle I wonder if Karl is aware of the new science book named The Goldilocks Planet which claims that throughout its 3 billion year history the earth was “just right” for the development of life.  Does not sound like cherrry pcking to me.   - Posted by Roger A. Sawtelle Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/small-brown-job http://biologos.org/blog/small-brown-job Juan Carlos de Martin event agentur    |    Sprachschule England    |    Stevia Produkte     |    permanent make-up - Posted by Juan Carlos de Martin Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 marklynn.buchanan Cristian, You wrote ‘There’s problems with archeology too.’ Of course there are - any research of any kind has difference of opinions and ‘controversies’ - that isn’t the point. Creationists claim that ‘historical science is not valid’ because of the argument ‘you weren’t there’. My question to you is where or how to you draw the line between something that is acceptable and not acceptable? If your answer is something like: ‘If the ‘science’ comes to any conclusion that disagrees with the bible then the conclusion can’t be true’ then certain consequences are inevitable. Mark - Posted by marklynn.buchanan Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 Ted Davis Very nice question! Someone may indeed be naive here, GJDS, but I don’t think it’s you. To defend the way in which I stated this, let me quote this: “What we almost exclusively say is that we have been given an eyewitness account to creation (and subsequent events) in the Bible. We often claim that God is an eyewitness to His creative acts and has given us an eyewitness account in His Word, the Bible.” Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/06/23/feedback-bible-gods-eyewitness-history. - Posted by Ted Davis Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/the-god-who-acts-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/the-god-who-acts-part-1 Jon Garvey Not to pre-empt where Russell is going (presumably into the quantum world if his other writings, previously cited by Ted Davis, are a guide), what we don’t seem to have seen in this initial post (or elsewhere) is an adequate justification for the Newtonian assumption that natural law makes the Universe an inviolable closed system at all. “Natural law” is a human construct, almost deliberately paralleling “God’s law” in the Bible. Yet the Bible itself only compares natural stability maybe twice with Law, and then metaphorically in relation to its dependency rather than its inviolability (eg Ps 93, Ps 119.89-91). Older formulations than the Newtonian, like the Aristotelian-Thomist, see what we call “law” not as universals but in terms of the properties of existing objects, which would not carry the Deist, and absolutist baggage of the deterministic “law” model - God would not be violating anything by supplementing such properties to achieve his purpose. It is hard to see why something like that might not be, in a different scientific system, an equally useful formulation, wiping out the “intervention” problem by showing it to be fallacious in the first place. What classical science has done to theology (in terms of nature now, mainly: a century ago miracle was beyond the pale too) is to restrict a God “working through natural law” necessarily to the same deterministic outcomes believed then to be predicted by science. That, and also being at the mercy of the same chance events postulated in, particularly, Darwinian evolution. In theory one could predict everythingt that God would do simply by computing the outcome of present motions of particles - thereby, in effect, rendering God superfluous, as the New Atheists still love to point out. Maybe quantum physics or some other mechanism does provide a way for God to act freely without violating “law.” But that clearly won’t make him any more able to act than he always has been - it just means the previous icorrect view of science, treated as an authority greater than revelation,  led to a wrong view of God. And likewise the theology that gave precedence to Newtonian science was misrepresenting God for a couple of centuries, with rather more than academic consequences for those disillusioned with a Deity who could only save passively. - Posted by Jon Garvey Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/randomness-and-gods-governance-part-3 http://biologos.org/blog/randomness-and-gods-governance-part-3 Roger A. Sawtelle GJDS, Scientists often differentiate between the physical or natural sciences and the life or social sciences, and I thibnk that this is good, because living beings can think and have a purpose, so they are3 not governed completely by mechanistic cause and effect. A major concern for me is that many scientists want to obliterate the line between the physical and life sciences and treat all of reality as if it were non-living.  Of course statistics is one way to do this.  This of course overlooks the fact that usually statistics give us a description of what is going on, but it does not explain why it is happening, unless we use a non-explanation explanation, such as, to get a evolutionary advantage. Math is good, but math is not an end in itself.  When math is used in reductionist manner as is the case, it reduces science to the lowest common denominator which is hardly the full truth, even though many people want to believe that it is.       - Posted by Roger A. Sawtelle Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 sy The problem with the rejection of historical science, is that it leads logically to a rejection of history as well. The major evidence we have of historical events are written documents, such as the letters of Paul, the books of the Old Testament, and so on. But how do you, living in the present, know for a fact that any of these writings are not forgeries prepared at some time in the past? You were not there to witness their being written, nor is there an unbroken chain of custody to rely on. The same tools of historical science are used in history as well. If you reject those tools, you must reject everything you have not seen with your own eyes. - Posted by sy Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/adams-dream2 http://biologos.org/blog/adams-dream2 Jon Garvey I can’t give a history of the doctrine of fallen creation, but it seems to have become populare only after the Patristic era. Space prevents quotes, but three from big players my be found at: Irenaeus Adv Haer II.28.7 Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word $3.3 Augustine Confessions VII [XII] 19 Penman, who knows a thing or two about church history, says the only people who believed the creation had become evil were the Gnostics. Luther seems to inherit that tradition when, replying to Erasmus, he says that the Bible says the Creation was good in God’s eyes, not necessarily ours. Some things to suggest caution in interpreting the theology of the picture: (a) Genesis 1 seems to imply vegetation for food on simple reading, so it may simply have represented that literally, without any moral connotation to later change (b) It may allude to the Eden-like prophecies in Isaiah, symbolically hinting at the new Eden to come rather than the past (c) In either case, it may represent Adam and Eve’s rulership and subduing of the animals, together with their own immortality and hence invulnerability. So the animals might well do their usual carnivorous thing in the outside world (as Mark maybe hints!), but are going to be on their best behaviour when attending the Royal court. But a review of the late mediaeval/early modern doctrinal situation would help - where’s Penman?? - Posted by Jon Garvey Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 Cristian Pascu There’s problems with archeology too. Of course you can say more about the artefact you find, understand the writings, the inscriptions, etc. But there will always be alternative scenarios, even plausible ones, that will explain the origin of the artefact.  Just think how many doubt the historicity of Christ.  - Posted by Cristian Pascu Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 GJDS Ted, I want to discuss briefly the following: God was the only eye-witness of the creation, and he has told us in Genesis exactly what took place. There can be no higher authority than this. Therefore, the Bible is the only truly reliable source of knowledge about the origin of the earth and the universe. I do not want to enter into a controversy regarding this point, but simply seek to understand how such a view would arise. I have re-read Genesis and some of Augustine’s commentary, and also some pointsfrom, “ Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by John of Damascus. I reprint below one portion from the latter: “Concerning things utterable and things unutterable, and things knowable and thinks unknowable. It is necessary, therefore, that one who wishes to speak or to hear of God should understand clearly that alike in the doctrine of Deity and in that of the Incarnation(1), neither are all things unutterable nor all utterable; neither all unknowable nor all knowable(2). But the knowable belongs to one order, and the utterable to another; just as it is one thing to speak and another thing to know. Many of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity;…” This interesting document continues on attributes of God, but I will not go on. It is clear that some things are utterable, and knowable, and other things not so. This does not support or deny the above statement, but does make it difficult to reconcile it with received wisdom. Thus for a human being to state that God is an eye-witness to His own creation is either a contradiction or a vacuous statement; i.e. unless the person saying this was a witness and he is testifying this to us. The second point I want to make is the entire Bible is a Testament by people of the Faith. It is their exposition, and as they are regarded as God’s servants who have proven to be faithful, and their understanding sufficient because of the faith they have displayed, we who believe are guided by the Holy Spirit accept their testament as sufficient, or as from God Himself. To believe God is the Creator is correct because of their testament. Thus my question is this: “Do we have a solid basis for discussions regarding the Biblical accounts? Should we not provide this first, and then seek a meaningful discussion regarding Science, or MN, or related matters. After all, one possibility may be that we may not have a Bible vs Science question to deal with at all?” It may sound naïve, but I guess the basis for some of these statement in your excellent article is unclear to me. - Posted by GJDS Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 Bilbo Ted, Whoops, I forgot to address that last comment to you.  BTW, I like you parsing of the approaches to MN so much, I’ll probably put it up at my blog. - Posted by Bilbo Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 Bilbo (In the past I have missed replies to my own comments by not carefully and repeatedly sifting through all comments.  So I prefer to just put my replies at the bottom of the queue.) Yes, I very much like your comprehensive breakdown of the different approaches to Methodological Naturalism.  Personally I prefer (d), but out of deference to Mike Gene (we debated this almost ad nauseum) I’m willing to go along with (b). - Posted by Bilbo Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-the-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-the-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity Bilbo Hi Melano, You wrote: “Please, Bilbo, stop right there. You know that’s not true. Behe wrote a book aimed entirely at laypeople to create such an impression. If Behe was really a part of the scientific enterprise, he’d be offering his challenge by generating and publishing data by working in his lab.” What sort of data did you have in mind? “... you need to explain why Behe doesn’t read the relevant primary literature. He testified under oath that he does not, even for an example that he chose to emphasize!” Did he say that he didn’t read it or that it wasn’t relevant to his point? “Bilbo, the issue is not what Dennis is claiming. The issue is the data that Dennis is pointing out to you. Now, I would give you 1000:1 odds that Behe has never read the papers that Dennis is citing here. Do you agree or disagree?” You’ve made three statements, so I’m not sure which one you mean, but I happen to disagree with all of them.  I don’t want to cause you financial hardship, so I’ll bet you $0.001.  That way, if I win I think you would owe me $1.00, which you may donate to the charity of your choice in my name. Bilbo: “…Eventually, in his book, Behe came to the conclusion ...(drum roll, please)...that Darwinian evolution can produce new systems, as long as it can happen one protein at a time.” Melano: “But was his conclusion based on an understanding of the data?” The “drum roll, please” should have been a good hint that his conclusion isn’t really all that controversial. “How long did it take him to admit that from the time it was pointed out to him?” I dunno.  I’ll guess from the time he finally read Abbey’s incredibly disrespectful essay, until the time he checked the literature? “More importantly, why would something so basic need to be pointed out to someone who bases his conclusion on so few cases?” My guess is that the HIV data was published after EoE was published. “The data say yes [a new system was created in HIV]. Really?  What was it? Bilbo: “And given that the mutation rate in HIV is 10,000 times higher than in living organisms, can we legitemately extrapolate from what HIV evolved to what living organisms can evolve?” Melano: “Absolutely, because we are capable of doing basic math. Are you?” Sometimes.  I think I know the difference between 10,000 and 1. Reply to this comment - Posted by Bilbo Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/randomness-and-gods-governance-part-3 http://biologos.org/blog/randomness-and-gods-governance-part-3 GJDS Merve wrote, “This sounds contradictory, though I think I can see your point ..” I think that within my limited understanding of Nature and the scientific method, I end up with two alternatives: (1) we do not know and thus must profess our own limitations before making various affirmative statements that are at the edge of our insights about objects and energy, or (2) ultimately we may need to show how we can sustain contradictions. Presently I am struggling with a philosophical work that addresses absences as causes. Good stuff for philosophers, odd and/or difficult for the scientists and the scientific method. Science may, by identifying a cause with an effect, be it singular or an even in a multiple sense (I am trying to be thorough),may infer from this purpose. However, I contend that we as human beings are capable of acting with purpose, and it may be that we also confir this to matters that interest us (or are important to us). This does not negate purpose, but rather tends to bring it into some sort of focus. On quantum mechanics (QM), I am not a theoretical physicist, and thus I regard myself as an observor rather than a practitioner; as an enthusiast I take the view that even observing or measuring quntum effects, I would assume, would mean what is observed as QM effects is subject to the same theoretical aspects of QM that are being investigated. Where do we identify uncertainty? in the event or in the measurment? or both? Thus conditions appear to me as extreme when considering things at a quantum level. Or perhaps we may end up with contradictions if we are not fully conversent with QM. Physicists consequently stipulate conditions that need to be met before they accept a measurement or an observation. This also infers purpose derived from human understanding and not implied in the events studied. My guess is that a similar statement may be made on evolution and biochemists; natural events can be extremely complicated at the molecular level. This in itself is problimatical, and science simply provides us with tools that give insights, but it also show our limitations. - Posted by GJDS Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-the-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-the-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity melanogaster “Behe has offered a challenge to Darwinian evolutionists: ” Please, Bilbo, stop right there. You know that’s not true. Behe wrote a book aimed entirely at laypeople to create such an impression. If Behe was really a part of the scientific enterprise, he’d be offering his challenge by generating and publishing data by working in his lab. Behe was trained as an empiricist, not a theoretician. If you want to argue that he has any business limiting himself to theory, you need to explain why Behe doesn’t read the relevant primary literature. He testified under oath that he does not, even for an example that he chose to emphasize! “…Dennis seems to be claiming that the new gene p24-2 is involved in a new IC system.” Bilbo, the issue is not what Dennis is claiming. The issue is the data that Dennis is pointing out to you. Now, I would give you 1000:1 odds that Behe has never read the papers that Dennis is citing here. Do you agree or disagree? “…Eventually, in his book, Behe came to the conclusion ...(drum roll, please)...that Darwinian evolution can produce new systems, as long as it can happen one protein at a time.” But was his conclusion based on an understanding of the data? “So yes, even Behe admitted that he was mistaken, and that HIV had produced a new protein.” How long did it take him to admit that from the time it was pointed out to him? More importantly, why would something so basic need to be pointed out to someone who bases his conclusion on so few cases? “The question is, did this result in a new system, such as a new molecular machine or pathway?” The data say yes. “And given that the mutation rate in HIV is 10,000 times higher than in living organisms, can we legitemately extrapolate from what HIV evolved to what living organisms can evolve?” Absolutely, because we are capable of doing basic math. Are you? - Posted by melanogaster Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/randomness-and-gods-governance-part-3 http://biologos.org/blog/randomness-and-gods-governance-part-3 Roger A. Sawtelle To be sure but that does not mean that the temperature is random, just that we are unable to foresee the conditions that will produce those conditions in advance of a certain period, because of the large number of variables involved.  Thus the coin flip is indeterminate in a narrow range, while the temperature is determined in a broader range by a broad range of variables which are difficult to predict.  This is why I find it hard to say that it is random.  The issue of course is that scientists say something is random if it is difficult to predict, not if it is not determined by known forces.   I expect you are right in saying that our understanding of the nano world is limited by the relatively clumsy nature of our tools. - Posted by Roger A. Sawtelle Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 Ted Davis Three excellent quetions/points, Bilbo. I don’t know the answer to #3, but I’d like to. I know view discussed was common in America prior to the Civil War—something we’ll come back to, if I get to do a separate series on religion and science in America—but I don’t know the literature in earlier periods well enough to answer with any confidence. Anyone who can provide specific examples from any period in Christian history is encouraged to do so. Re #1: If one accepts methodological naturalism (MN), then (as you say) one might be faced with data that cannot presently be “explained” fully—not a novel situation in any science. It seems to me that we identify at least 4 possible approaches to MN, in general. (a) ALL events have “natural” explanations, whether or not we can produce them now, based on our limited knowledge. It is *never* legitimate to invoke “supernatural” agency. We might perhaps call this the strong form of MN; it’s not held provisionally and not open to supernatural agency in any way. (b) A weaker form of MN: we should always do the best we can to find a “natural” explanation, since we know from experience that “natural” explanations almost always work well to explain events. Science must confine itself to such explanations, but we cannot rule out the possibility that certain events simply do not have scientific explanations. (c) A strong rejection of MN: MN is appropriate for the experimental sciences, but absolutely inadmissible in the historical sciences. The Bible tells us what God actually did, and we must interpret all data in light of this. (d) A weaker rejection of MN: MN is generally valid, even in the historical sciences, but it must not be used arbitarily to rule out design; it must allow the possibility that an intelligent cause (whether acting “naturally” or “supernaturally”) is a necessary part of the complete explanation of the data. Is that a reasonable way to parse this, Bilbo? - Posted by Ted Davis Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 http://biologos.org/blog/science-and-the-bible-scientific-creationism-part-1 marklynn.buchanan Cristian,One problem with ‘historical science is not science’ reasoning how to know when you cross the line. You no doubt accept archeology as legitimate science but how far can you go back before you slip into illegitimate historical science? There is no clear line between archeology and paleontology in some cases.Mark - Posted by marklynn.buchanan Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/randomness-and-gods-governance-part-3 http://biologos.org/blog/randomness-and-gods-governance-part-3 Merv The quantum world is also the realm of the substantial wavelength (in relative terms).  I.e.  Whereas wavelengths of macroscopic objects like dimes or baseballs are buried among Planck length magnitudes far beyond our detection abilities, the wavelengths of electrons in the nano world, however, begin to substantially impinge on how that electron can behave in an atom.  I.e. the electron’s location as a particle becomes an inherently meaningless question at precision levels smaller than its wavelength.  Hence its jumping between discrete quanta as explained by Bohr.     At least that is my limited understanding of one interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  Again, I’m not so sure this rules out determinism as the metaphysical level, though many others seem to have that conclusion.  But combinging this with chaos theory sure does the slam dunk on any delusions we may have ever had that chaotic systems (even big ones like weather!) will ever look anything but random to us.  And that ‘randomness’ (I’ll start referring to it as ‘apparent randomness’ if that makes you feel better, Roger, because that is really what I mean with the word) is not totally unconstrained—I don’t think anybody is insisting that it is.  Weather forecasters can still do their good work because such ‘randomness’ still has predictability on short term macroscopic scales.  They just have to concede helplessness in the face of the particulars (what temperature will it be in Durham, KS two weeks from now? —the forecasting equivalent of trying to guess a coin flip) -Merv - Posted by Merv Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00 http://biologos.org/blog/saving-the-children http://biologos.org/blog/saving-the-children Melissa Richards I do not yet have children of my own, but am already thinking about how I want to structure their education when I do have them. I really like the “University-Model” schools, where children are only in school 1-3 days per week (depending on age), and are at home the remaining days, learning from their parents. So it is a supplemental school for homeschooled kids. However, I am really frustrated that most of these schools teach young earth creationism. I really hope that BioLogos can put out some kind of curriculum by the time I have kids going into school (maybe 7 yrs or so?) - I will especially be praying that something like this is available, I think it is a fabulous idea! - Posted by Melissa Richards Blog comments 2012-05-22T12:00:35+00:00