Evolutionary biologist William Provine died recently.
They praise him for being a wonderful person, but according to his own worldview, there's no reason to be a wonderful person. I suspect much of his kindness was a residual effect of his former Christian faith and upbringing.
Likewise, I suspect he understood the drastic moral and existential cost of atheism because he had Christianity as a standard of comparison.
I basically agree with him about evolution, although there are scientists (e.g. Rupert Sheldrake, Simon Conway Morris, Michael Behe, Michael Denton) who do think there's design in evolution.
He also suffers from the tunnel vision of people who measure everything by their particular specialization. Even if he believes evolution is true, and there's no evidence for design in evolution, that hardly means there's no evidence for God's existence. That disregards all the other lines of evidence for God's existence.
Finally, I wonder if his labored speech was the result of treatment for brain cancer and the recurrence of his brain cancer.
You say, "I basically agree with him about evolution". Does that mean you are a theistic evolutionist? If so, what is the prime reason which compels you to believe that God used evolution as a mode of creation? I would remind you, before you answer, to keep in mind that, "Let there be light" (Gen 1:3) and "He spake and it was done" (Ps 33:9) serve to show that even a superficial reading of the account of creation impresses the reader with the idea of "suddeness". Hence, the Scriptures are against any slow or sporadic arrival of light, man or animal. Neither is any such idea ever even hinted at; for as you know, all miracles in the Bible were instantaneous; thus it seems logical that God would laugh at such slowpoke notions of using evolution to finally "get to the point" of a fully formed creature. Remember, He was able to create a great army of men from a pile of dry bones right before the eyes of Ezekiel in no more than a minute! (Ezekiel 37:3-10). And John the Baptist confirms that, "God is able of these very stones to raise up children unto Abraham" if He so desired (Matt 3:9), and one may rightly assume, "very quickly" at that.
ReplyDeletei) I agree with him about the implications of evolution. He himself was an atheist. So your inference is bizarre.
Deleteii) According to Scripture, God works through history. That's a time-consuming process of divine action.
iii) You have an inept hermeneutic. Mt 3:9 is hyperbole; the vision of dry bones is just that–a vision.
===
DeleteYou say, "I basically agree with him about evolution". Does that mean you are a theistic evolutionist?
===
Side note: It seems like Unknown hasn't read much of this site to come up with this question. :-)
I've seen quite a few people make these types of reading errors. I'm not trying to blame Unknown or anything. It is a skill that reading lots and lots of books will help with over time. To me, though, it's pretty obvious what Steve is referring to when you look at the whole quote: "I basically agree with him about evolution, although there are scientists (e.g. Rupert Sheldrake, Simon Conway Morris, Michael Behe, Michael Denton) who do think there's design in evolution."
How do we examine that sentence? Well, first the parenthetical just provides examples and can be set aside for the moment as they do not impact the meaning of the sentence as a whole but are clarifying remarks (which is why they are in parentheses in the first place (see what I did here?)).
The sentence to be examined is therefore: "I basically agree with him about evolution, although there are scientists who do think there's design in evolution."
The second clause of the sentence restricts the meaning of what comes before the coma. Indeed, it's even more obvious if we rewrite it "Although there are scientists who do think there's design in evolution, I basically agree with him on evolution." So this sentence actually says nothing about whether or not Steve agrees with evolution as a whole, but clearly shows Steve agrees that evolution is purposeless and not designed. That is the point of distinction being made in the sentence.
Now if someone agrees that evolution is directionless, it does not require they agree that evolution (which needs to be fully defined to really be examined) actually occurs. For instance, suppose Adam argues that Excalibur could only be pulled from the stone by someone who is a pure king. Billy argues that Excalibur could be pulled from the stone by anyone who was strong enough to do so. If I said, "I agree with Adam about Excalibur, although other friends (Steve and Patrick) think that strength is sufficient to pull Excalibur from the stone" this does not imply that I believe the Arthurian legends, but merely that Adam's view is the one that is consistent with the legend.
Unknown wrote:
ReplyDelete...serve to show that even a superficial reading of the account of creation impresses the reader with the idea of "suddeness".
Some OT prophecies "impress the reader with the idea of suddeness" yet (for people who believe Jesus is the prophesied Messiah) we know their fulfillment includes a span as long as the inter-adventual period (i.e. between the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ).
Hence, the Scriptures are against any slow or sporadic arrival of light, man or animal.
What may take a long time from the perspective of man may seem "quick" from God's perspective since God doesn't live with our space-time limitations.
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.- 2 Peter. 3:8
....for as you know, all miracles in the Bible were instantaneous...
That's not true. Jesus prayed for a blind man twice (Mark 8:22-26). There are cases of exorcism that seemed to take more than a minute. Maybe 5 or more minutes (Mark 5:8ff.). The Ten Lepers were healed on their way to going to see the priests so that they might be examined (Luke 17:11-19). The following passages may suggest (depending on translation and whether there is an idiom or not) it sometimes took approximately an hour for some to be healed; Matthew 8:13; 9:22; 15:28; 17:18. In John 4:52-53 it states that the sick person "began to amend." It apparently took 3 days for Hezekiah to get well after Isaiah pronounced that God would heal him and give him 15 additional more years of life. It took Naaman having to dip 7 times for him to be healed of leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-14). The cursed fig tree took time to wither (Matthew's account is probably telescoped). It took time for Epaphroditus to get well. Yet, Paul attributed the healing to God's mercy on Epaphroditus and on himself (i.e. Paul); and apparently in response to prayer (Phil. 2:27).
It took three attempts for Elisha to resurrect a boy. Attempt 1: Gehazi laying Elisha's staff on the child's face at Elisha's prophetic command and instruction. No apparent effect. Attempt 2. Elisha stretches himself over the child. Child gets warm, but doesn't wake up. Attempt 3. Elisha again stretches himself over the child. Child sneezes seven times and then opens his eyes. Elisha only stretched himself two times over the dead child before the child was eventually resurrected. Elisha probably did it in imitation of his mentor Elijah who stretched himself over a dead child three time (1 Kings 17:21). This is a condensed version of another comment I wrote HERE.
Finally, why assume that if God sometimes performed instantaneous miracles that He couldn't do slow and/or progressive miracles? Analogously, if a man can run a mile in under 4 minutes, why can't that same person walk it for a period longer than 30 minutes? He may stop multiple times and take in the scenery. Sometimes the very process of something has value itself. A great chief can just purchase a cake or he can take the 2 1/2 hour time to bake it himself with his children.
I'm not saying theistic evolution or progressive creationism is true. But I can see how God could have enjoyed the process.