It comes across as though you’re saying since the theological has a “traditionally poor record,” (and science’s record goes without saying) it is the theological which has often been wrong and that the scientific has always been right (or nearly always been right).

But there’s another, more fundamental, flaw in this reasoning. It assumes that since errors have been made by the respective discipline, it is doubtful (if not absolute) that the same discipline’s conclusions couldn’t possibly be correct about anything, EVER. Is that your meaning? Just because a discipline has made errors, it DOESN’T follow that all their subsequent conclusions are wrong. If that were the case, then I could easily make the same argument about science. But I won’t because I believe it would be disingenuous for me to do so.

In closing, let me add that I’m not implying you’re being disingenuous with that barb. I believe you’re being honest, sincere, and respectful in your comments. But I do believe that folks on both sides make these kinds of statements without really thinking about it, mostly because we’ve been so inundated by these messages, the meme becomes an unquestioned truth in the culture.

Thanks:)

Along with the benign examples from the url you referenced is another fairly innocuous one, involving water draining from a bathtub.

Initially, you have randomness in play as the water molecules drop down the drain. However, toward the end of the cycle, the molecules spontaneously form a vortex. Some scientists have suggested (as you did) that under certain circumstances nature could do the same thing concerning biology. Never mind that the case studies show no such examples in living things; the real point is that the examples cited as evidence are utterly NOT analogous to what is observed in living systems.

And the main reason why is the level of organization in the examples, both from the site and my bathtub analogy, is extremely low level. There’s a huge difference between the amount of information required to produce the examples cited and the amount of information required to produce the specified complexity we see in biology. That explains the desperation of brilliant scientists like Francis Crick and now even skeptics like Richard Dawkins looking for intelligent causes for our existence.

Granted, they’re not willing to credit a non-empirical supreme being as the intelligence behind specified complexity, but they are willing to entertain the possibility of non-empirical E.T.’s as the reason for biological complexity. BTW, I think this is a step in the right direction (this puts them grudgingly in the Intelligent Design camp). At least now they’re beginning to accept that specified complexity is ordered at such a high level that evolution friendly mechanisms like chance, natural laws, and mutation can’t account for it.

But their admission reveals their real objection. It’s not intelligence as a causative factor for life on the planet they have a problem with; it’s the possessor of that intelligence. After all, what is the real difference between undetectable spacemen and an undetectable supreme being? In a word, it’s accountability. Therein lies the philosophical bias undergirding what has become synonymous with enlightened thinking—not that their bias makes them necessarily wrong. But you can see how their bias has skewed their thinking and thus their “science” when they are ready and willing to invoke aliens but they won’t invoke God.

I also note that concerning your comment about secularists and theists believing in naturalistic evolution that the inverse is true concerning I.D. theorists. This shows as a point of fact that a person doesn’t have to believe in God in order to believe that biological systems are the result of intelligence. Just ask Dawkins and Crick.

It’s scale.

To our eyes, the wind blown sand might appear orderly, but has it been measured? and, since all the sand grains are basically the same size, then it would follow they would react the same to the wind. This is hardly order from disorder.

Order from disorder is an illusion, that I propose was put forward by folks trying to rationalize away God. In point of fact, the universe itself if very ordered, when one looks deep enough. Until you can show me that electrons vary in size, or that their subatomic particles vary in size, I will respond that we live in a universe whose very building blocks crush the ridiculous idea of random creation.

I was so impressed with the civility in your exchange, that I just couldn’t help but throw in my two cents. I am a Christian, “in love” with logical reasoning and strong, well thought out discussion. Let me preface this commentary with this, I may be wrong.

The greatest flaw of Darwinian evolution is that it “cannot” address the origin of the first organism. Evolution itself requires something to first “exist” in order for it to “evolve.” Evolution is just an observation that things “change over time.” Richard Dawkins, himself, publicly admitted that no one knows for certain how the first organism was formed. Darwin stumbled onto something when he discovered “adaption,” but Evolution as an explanation of “the beginning” has no substance.

“The problem of evil” is really in the eyes of the beholder. Basically, humans equate evil to things they don’t like, such as “being killed.” Humans die, it is a part of life, whether we like it or not. So what about rape, theft, child abuse, etc. Those are deplorable things, but if God took ALL of those away, we would complain about getting beat up, or being called bad names. So if God took those away, we would complain about traffic or our favorite shows being preempted, etc. Can you see that unless everyone and everything is the exactly the same and completely unchanging, humans will find “evil” in them. Imagine a world where a paper-cut was the worst thing in your day. It would probably devastate you. “Did you hear? Chad got a paper-cut yesterday…that poor man has been through so much. Why would God let that happen?” Humans are so narcissistic, we will always feel sorry for ourselves. Also, without “suffering” there could be no joy. People would be spoiled and could not appreciate the good things, for there would be nothing to compare them to. They would just be things.

Do I have the answers? Well, as a matter of fact, I do. The subjects at hand are beyond the realm of human understanding. The “closest” we will ever get to tangibly finding these answers is through rational discourse such as this. Put a pair of pants on it. Put a skirt on it. Your only choice is faith. I choose Christianity, because I, like Lance, have to go on personal experience, and everything in my heart tells me I’m “close.” I will never know it all, but in a world “filled with evil” God is the only thing that gives me hope.

I have no problem with you or anyone jumping in. Conversation wants to be free!

1. The belief that order can arise from disorder is far from a “philosophical choice.” It is in fact a scientifically well-documented phenomenon.

2. I think our views are simply too far apart on what scientific explanations are to have a meaningful discussion. I would note, however, that “theological explanations” have traditionally had a poor record.

3. It will be interesting to read what you consider the countless flaws of evolutionary theory are. There are some disagreements over specific evolutionary mechanisms, but the theory as a whole is doubted only by a tiny few (who, curiously, all seem to have a religious background.) Those who accept the theory are not simply comprised of secularists, but theists as well.

4. The problem of evil has bedeviled theologians for centuries. I think as part of your Case for a Creator series, it’s a subject you should address in the interest of balance. A one-sided case is not much of a case, is it?

I realize your most recent comment was directed toward Chad rather than myself. I hope this is not inappropriate for me to respond, but some of the things you said in your last comment beg for clarification.

1. “…whether order can arise from disorder. If I understand you correctly, you believe such a process cannot occur without some divine intelligence to drive it.” — Along with Chad, I would agree to disagree with you about this. To suggest order increases naturally, particularly the degree of order required to create life (or even to add a pair of meaningful chromosomes to existing life), is of such low probability as to be impossible in all practical respects. You have every right to believe it can – that’s a philosophical choice.

2. “I agree that scientific explanations don’t constitute evidence, but I believe they’re often superior to theological explanations in their ability to coherently account for the sum of evidence we have.” — First, you’re expressing a belief, just as we are. I appreciate your acknowledgment of that. Thank you. Secondly, ‘scientific explanations’ are actually philosophical musings, not actual science. Many people don’t realize this, thinking a measurement constitutes a conclusion. You and I could both take the same measurement of a box and come up to radically different conclusions about what the box must contain. Obviously we disagree about which is superior – ‘scientific explanations’ (philosophy developed by man) or ‘theological explanations’ (revelations from God expressed through man).

3. “It was not too long ago when it seemed that the best explanations for the diversity of life and the existence of humanity came from theology. This is no longer the case with evolution theory.” — Your assumption that the ‘best explanations’ have changed is based on your perspective. It is certainly very popular and clearly in from your perspective most popular. Popular notion is not the same as objective fact. Please don’t think I’m stating my beliefs to be objective fact. My beliefs are called ‘beliefs’ because they include an element of faith. My perspective, just like your perspective, is founded on belief in something which cannot be measured or repeated by quantitative scientific means. Your humility in this discourse it to be greatly commended, but to state so bluntly that evolutionary theory is a better explanation is subjective at best and certainly not accepted at face value. There are countless flaws with evolutionary theory as this series of posts will continue to explore. I can only guess that you have more problems with the idea of the Christian God than your stated “problem of evil.”

4. “…I think the Problem of Evil makes the probability of the existence of the Christian god very remote.” — Taking this particular objection at face value, I realize I will likely not convince you of anything in a mere post comment. That said, I will take a stab at it. Your statement implies evil is God’s fault. The implication is that if in fact God created everything, then God created evil as well. I loathe to get into a debate about free will vs. predestination, but I do believe (personal philosophy) God created humans with free will. Evil exists not because of the free will of humans, but because of the choices made by humans using that free will. Am I splitting hairs? Perhaps. It goes a lot deeper and there’s not room in the comments to go there fully and I fear I would bore you if I tried. Suffice it to say I don’t blame God for the problem of evil, rather I look to Him as the solution for evil.

Again, I want to express my appreciation for your civil debate. Thanks.

I too appreciate your gracious replies and willingness to express your views and disagreements absent the usual background rancor.

We’ll have to agree to disagree over what seems to be an essential point of divergence: whether order can arise from disorder. If I understand you correctly, you believe such a process cannot occur without some divine intelligence to drive it.

I agree that scientific explanations don’t constitute evidence, but I believe they’re often superior to theological explanations in their ability to coherently account for the sum of evidence we have. It was not too long ago when it seemed that the best explanations for the diversity of life and the existence of humanity came from theology. This is no longer the case with evolution theory.

That said, I agree that the existence of some “unmoved mover” will never be disproved, though I think the Problem of Evil makes the probability of the existence of the Christian god very remote.

Anyway, no. My reference to probability isn’t some form of God of the Gaps fallacy. God of the Gaps refers to explanations which are beyond the realm of human explanatory power and therefore belong in God’s domain. The current thinking among those who use this rhetorical weapon is that as human understanding increases, God is relegated to the gaps in our knowledge. In effect, God’s domain shrinks as mans knowledge increases. God becomes nothing more than an interpretive construct in which to explain those things we haven’t an answer for…yet. That certainly isn’t my position and that isn’t the position I took in my earlier comments.

The position I did take was really supplemental in nature. It wasn’t something that explains my entire epistemology. It merely buttresses my view that the universe is more likely the result of a mind as opposed to nothing. That’s what makes sense to me. And if I may be so bold, I believe my view is the objective reality of the cosmos. Entropy, randomness, chance, natural laws, simple repetitive order, the Law of Directed Processes, whatever can’t build a house and they can’t build an ordered universe either. It takes a mind to do that, which is why the order we see all around us wreaks of intelligence.

As for Hawking, his views are primarily metaphysical (as are mine). I’m not saying he isn’t brilliant. I’m just saying that his views are, as you said, suggestions.

Finally, scientific explanations (or suggestions) aren’t evidence any more than say, theological ones are. They are merely what they say they are: explanations. But where the rubber meets the road is the evidence. And each person must decide for themselves what the evidence says in making the determination as to which metaphysical construct is true. Both cases are metaphysics pure and simple. As such, they garner nothing more than inferential evidence. Inference is linked to probability distributions, which to repeat, are heavily in favor of design. But I fully realize that I’ll never be able to prove to you that God exists, nor will you prove to me that He doesn’t. That’s pretty much why all discussions which endeavor to prove/disprove God’s existence are fruitless from an EMPIRICAL standpoint. Perhaps it’s even vain for me to try to speak to this issue. But vain or not, I do believe it is good to strive for mutual understanding, and I appreciate your being willing.

I’m not sure you’ve captured Hawking’s understanding correctly. From what I’ve read, Hawking’s model appears more like a sphere.

I’m not sure how you’re able to make conclusive judgments about the universe, when scientists who’ve spent their lives studying the subject are unable to do so. The universe needs a beginning as much as there is something further south than the south poll, Hawkings might say.

I don’t wish to minimize your personal experience, because it’s obviously quite dear to you. I’ll simply note that similar experiences are put forward as evidence in favor of other religions besides Christianity. This is something for which Christians don’t have a very good explanation.