The God of the Gaps
@Sean Pitman:

At risk of being drawn further into the vortex that is dialogue on this site I would offer a final comment to once again try to counter the woolly thinking and confusion about science and religion that is all too prevalent here.

As I have said before the bottom line for me is that I am a disciple of Christ and accept the Pauline synthesis offered in 1 Cor 1 as the core of my religious belief.

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Like Bonhoeffer, Barth and more recently Alister McGrath I would see natural theology as a largely meaningless endeavor in terms of our knowledge of of God which only comes through his revelation in the life and death of the person Jesus.

We can argue ad infinitum as we have done before about how this knowledge can be imparted but I make no apology that it is not by the rational and logical process sought by Greeks and Sean.

In response to Peter’squestion I would say that we must accept we are ignorant on many things not least of which is the origin of life. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of the life but does that mean we then must say there is therefore no natural explanatory mechanisms and this is the locus of Gods activity. There is an anthropic universe which gives us some reason to say that the universe may be ordered and meaningful but it argues no more than that. As a Christian I can only say that the locus of Gods activity and revelation is in Christ who reveals the nature of God and the ethic of the kingdom.

As Sean has well indicated in his original blog at the head of this column, historically implicating God as the cause for the many unknowns is a losing strategy and will lead to an decreasing role for God as explanator.
I should not have to repeat the simple and obvious examples such as the new testaments attribution of mental illness and epilepsy to demons and the supernatural. I cannot see how rational therapies with anti-epileptic drugs and antidepressants that have cleared out our asylums and allowed people to live relatively normal lives would have developed if we had continued to accept these explanations rather than explored the possibility of natural mechanisms amenable to natural interventions.

I think it incontrovertible that accepting the meta-narrative of intelligent design as a theoretical basis for the natural world stops scientific research as can be easily verified by searching in the original published research in life sciences based on this premise. Intelligent design has a vested interest in not finding explanation for its strength lies in its explanation of the unknown or improbability based on the current known mechanisms. Sean is a prime example of an intelligent design. Excellent in the meta-analysis of the meta data but not in generation of original hypothesis driven research outputs. I would be happy to be corrected on this with reference to papers indexed on pubmed based explicitly on IDT.

In contrast biological science practiced as hypothesis testing based on the core premise of science; natural mechanisms and experimentation has produced 259,888 papers on aspects of evolutionary processes and mechanisms. In terms of abiogenesis there has been 721 original research publications including the work of nobel laureate Jack Szostak.

1. Trevino SG, Zhang N, Elenko MP, Lupták A, Szostak JW. Evolution of functional nucleic acids in the presence of nonheritable backbone heterogeneity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011 Aug;108(33):13492–13497.
2. Schrum JP, Zhu TF, Szostak JW. The origins of cellular life. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2010 Sep;2(9):a002212.

You may dismiss these as simply basic data points only tangentially relevant to the big question but this is the nature of science. An original research paper is an incremental increase in knowledge never the definitive answer to a big question. Surely these nearly 250000 incremental increases in knowledge amount to something. At least to me it seems somewhat arrogant, when I have said I accept naturalism as the basis of scientific research on origins as evident in the peer reviewed literature, to dismiss this body of evidence with a statement like;

“If by “natural mechanisms” you mean mindless natural mechanisms, then how is this statement remotely scientific? It’s a sincere question on my part. I fail to see how you’ve presented any testable argument regarding your proposed mechanism for either the origin or diversity of life beyond very low levels of functional complexity? How is the hypothesis of a mindless mechanism, without any input from any intelligent source of any kind, testable? How is it scientific?”

I am not sanguine enough to expect that I will have had any effect on the thoughts of most commenters on this site but if I have been able to help even one observer see that the Grace God revealed in Jesus is not incompatible with full participation in the process of science I would be happy.

---

The God of the Gaps
@Sean Pitman:

I am astounded that you can without blushing confidently assert that intelligent design as a surrogate for literal creationism is scientific but the views of scientists based on observable data and routinely subject to hypothesis testing is not.

“My views are testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. Unfortunately, yours are not… ”

I am not sure which of my scientific ideas are not testable. Clearly I have religuous views which I accept by faith and which I would never claim to be amenable to hypothesis testing. I do not however accept that the process of science is in any way deceptive and accept that scientists almost without exception have a high regard for honesty and openness as evidence by the process of peer review and open publication and do science in good faith.

In contrast to my acceptance of complementary roles of science and religion and faith you have a view that denigrates blind faith as a path to understanding of the transcendent and claim you must only accept in religion what is supported by the predominance of scientific evidence.

One of the main problems we are confronting here is of definitions. I think you are concatenating 2 ideas about probabilities and design and using one legitimate scientific observation of unlikely contingencies in cosmology to lend validity to another; a rebadged literal creationism and a God of the gaps which I think denies legitimate scientific investigations in biology and not surprisingly is deprecated by most biologists.

There would be much more clarity if you kept these 2 ideas separate and were open about the history of the ideas. The anthropic principle although accepted by many physicist was almost uniquely described by Fred Hoyle in terms of intelligent design. Other physicists have continued to more accurately use the descriptive term “‘the anthropic principle”. Few if any physicists would accept Fred Hoyles idea of panspermia which not surprisingly he has linked back to his designation of the anthropic principle as intelligent design.

The Kitzmiller vs Dover court case has been over the issue of what is intelligent design and clearly established that the way you are using intelligent design is a cut and paste for “scientific” creationism.

I must be obtuse. I can see the tenuous logic but I still really cannot see where the intense fervour for intelligent design comes from. As a scientist reading DI writings is a painful process that seems like a desperate and last ditch attempt to cling to a failing world view that is contingent on a fundamentalist assumptions and understandings of revelation. I much prefer to accept the Grace of God as revealed in Jesus and communicated within his Church and let the science resolve itself.

Like the scientific creationism before it, I cannot see that ID really has any significant explanatory value in terms of generating hypotheses. I am however really pleased that you think that your ideas “are testable in a potentially falsifiable manner” I look forward to seeing them presented in the only forum in which science is conducted; the peer reviewed literature.

---

The God of the Gaps
Sean

You hopefully suggest

“The only real question that remains, then, is if there is a valid naturalistic explanation for living things and their diversity or not?”

There are many more questions than that.

What the writers you cite above realize is that in honestly following the scientific evidence there is 3 things that they must conclude.
1] There is an anthropic principle; the Goldilocks principle the world is just right for life and that this is a highly unlikely scenario and would require a multitude of universes not evident for this to be by chance.
2] The evidence for evolution of the complexity of life once established on earth is irrefutable. Darwinian mechanisms may or may not be sufficient but natural mechanisms are most likely
3] Intelligence and mind are natural consequences of a highly complex brain that arose by these natural mechanisms.

This is the scientific position. Whether God was working through these processes is a philosophical not a scientific question.
You enamoured as you are with statistical inference twist these arguments about to invoke some grand theory of intelligent design when none is required.

In terms of my 3 points of science you I think would agree with the anthropic principle
On point 2 all I have read from you says you dispute the evidence and argue that most scientists are honestly deceived. You do not agree on dating methods, ice cores, varves, volcanic ocean ridges, continental drift, fossil evidences and geological columns, relatedness of genomic sequences or phylogenies, history of insertions of repetitive elements; all evidences that most scientists including those above would accept in good faith as likely true.
On point 3 you have this idea of some overarching intelligence that is God like but may or may not be natural that is responsible for anything that is more complex than close to inanimate objects.

With such a gulf between what you will accept of reality it is not surprising there is little common ground between your views and conventional hypothesis driven science.

---

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Bob Helm: With that said, I find your views to be spiritually dangerous and often scientifically weak. I detect a lot of smoke in your posts, but very little light. I hope you will continue to ponder these issues and try to have an open mind.

You are most welcome to your opinion and I know you would like nothing better than that anyone who takes Christianity and the Bible seriously but not literally to just go away. It is much better not to know of any possible problems with one current views. It very hard to get to the science when we cannot even agree on what is science. What passes as science on this site is so completely dismissive of its methodological basis and history and is entrained in a specific supernatural world view that allows arbitrary acceptance of any observation as miraculous. I think Roger’s paper may well be relevant to Adventist that believe that Christianity has and must respond to a careful study of physical reality by reconsidering its interpretations of the word of the Lord, but as Sean has indicated you are exception to that characterization. I still do not really understand why you should be interested at all in any science. It seems a bit messy to worry about facts. It really seems an unnecessary bother to argue whether the precambrian/cambrian boundary or the upper cenzoic (is that really what you meant?) as the evidence of a divine intervention.

Dont worry I do have an open mind which is why I still peruse this site to see how more knowledgable fundamentalist Adventists think. I wont worry you further.

---

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: So, you do see the need for a police force and a military to maintain civil society, but somehow Christians should not provide what is an otherwise necessary part of that civil society? I’m with Abraham Lincoln on this one when he noted the inconsistency of such a position – like Orthodox Jews paying others to turn their lights on for them on Sabbath

On that logic you should not have any issue with working on Sabbath in any profession serving 24/7. Be that computer support, utilities firefighters. Those giving up those jobs because of inability to have sabbath observance were all deluded. They as Christians should be prepared to “provide what is otherwise a necessary part of civil society”

You cant have it both ways. You cant because of a moral postion claim that Adventists should have exception from working on Sabbath and at the same time deny me the right to consider immoral some occupations that may be very utilitarian in a world full of selfishness and the human acts of evil that comes from that.

Lets for a moment step back from lala land. Where are we and where did we come from on this thread?

1] You posted a rehash of all your usual arguments in response to an article about the more mainstream Adventist positions that may impact the way Adventism reacts to conventional science. All very straight forward.
2] The contention was that Adventism has accepted process for the orgin and evolution of the inanimate world. The birth and death of galaxys and stars and planets in black holes supernova and impacts of spiralling planets. This is where it gets really strange.
3] You contend that Adventism has always accepted the conclusions of that process but then expand on your view of the process which involves a little bit of order and natural law but large amounts of magic. God waited a few billions years until the interstellar material generated by the big band condensed into planets onto which God created life mature and complete. This included Heaven the place of his throne-room which he populated with physical being angels which it is implied have both mass and composition and metabolism.
4] When it was suggested that the same processes and natural law resulted in life on this planet this was claimed inconceivable and would never be done by any process involving life and death. Instead the life we see now is in reality designed to live for ever and has be chemically changed because it is deprived of a particular form of nutrient from a tree that existed on the Earth some 6000 years ago.
5] The inconguity of practicing medicine by the principles of process of natural law and the technology resulting from both the processes of the innanimate and the animate world rather than accepting the much more important process of divine intervention seems to be completely obsure.
6] When someone says that the process of life and death that gave us the physical substance of our universe is also the basis of the creation of life here he must be animal hating sadistic psychopath who cannot belieive in a God of love and grace and is lying when he says that non-violence characterizes the children of the heavenly father for one must always recognize that peace and freedom are only obtained over the bodies of 1/3 of the angels of heaven and the eternal physical and violent struggle against those who would practice violence.

I really cannot understand you Sean. Your ways are way beyond me. I am just sorry that Bob seems to be drawn into your twighlight zone.

Grace

---

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: sorry but your curious amalgam of magic and biology is not really comprehensible to me as a biologist or as a Christian . it. is neither logical or biologically feasible

---

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: However, according to the Bible and Ellen White, before the Fall God specifically directed nature so that all sentient life was protected in a manner that there was no suffering or death. By eating from the “Tree of Life” God provided constant renewal and regeneration that worked against what would otherwise be inevitable entropic changes, decay, and death. It was by deliberately stepping away from the true Source of eternal life that mankind stepped away from God and into the full workings of mindless natural law alone – which does in fact inevitably lead to suffering and death.

And this interpretation is precisely why you need a theodicy. Where is the justice in killing all for the sake of the sins of one woman+man? It makes no sense logically. If they were conditionally immortal because of eating of the tree of life then did all the animals in all the world congregate around this tree like beasts around a water hole on the serengeti. how exactly do you as you are wont to do translate the account into a literal reality. And which beast had to come and eat. Or was it symbolic? Oh now that’s a thought.

---

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?

Sean Pitman: Come on now. Even I can imagine limitations to reproduction or the turnover of sentient carbon-based life. Surely you can at least imagine something similar? I know God can since such a world is described in the Bible and in the writings of Ellen White. Think about it…

Of course I have. This is not simply about reproduction. That is trivial. This is about metabolic process. Show me a carbon based life form that does not grow or metabolize anything and I will show you an organism in stasis as a spore “living” millions of year in amber. That is; effectively dead.

Real life cannot exist without metabolic process in a carbon based world and God has sanctified all this by a process of making good out of evil from the death of one comes life for others. Just as in the biological world so in the spiritual. By his death we have life. Just as God sanctified the practice of sacrifice of appeasement practiced by most cultures for thousands of years before and showed that in the Judeo-Christian tradition these same acts of sacrifice were emblematic of a monotheistic God that would become incarnate and bring life from death. So also he took the preceding accounts of creation derived as they were of the mesopotamian valley and recast it as an account of the monotheistic God who is above all but comes and dwells among us to become one of us. Participating in our life and death but showing us the importance of the transcendent life of the spirit that supercedes carbon based life and its inherent death. It is no fairy tale of 6 impossible things before breakfast. It is not pie in the sky by and by. It is rooted in a real world and it is about the transcendence of love and grace that is acted out in a real physical world by the incarnate God and us as we follow as His disciples.

That is the message I get from the images and visions of the Canon and EG White. But of course I read it for the message that it conveys not as a scientific text. That is where we fundamentally differ.

---