Thursday, July 2, 2009

Fusion: Convergence in Biology


In the previous post, I wrote to Nate, “The truths revealed in the cosmos, the fossil record, and our own DNA may at first be jarring to Christian faith. But when we stop resisting these truths, and begin the work of combining them with the revealed truths in the Bible, the exciting journey toward a fuller understanding of truth begins. And I am jazzed about that journey.” I have been on this journey for several years. However, most of my OutsideTheBox posts have concentrated upon the issue of evolution. The question of our evolutionary history is a settled issue for me. To me, the theological implications of evolution are of much greater interest and import. A friend recently encouraged me to post more on the impact evolutionary cosmology and biology have upon Christian theology. This I will do in a new series of posts under the heading of “Fusion”, with an open invitation for readers to join in with comments and questions. Many Christian sites are responding to apparent contradictions between science and faith. My purpose in this Fusion series of posts is to step beyond these problems to ask the question, “If science and the Bible are both revealing truth, what happens when we combine them? What new insights result from the fusion of growing natural revelation and special revelation?”



In a recent online discussion, a Creationist explained to me the problem he has with evolutionary science: "So God did not create man in his own image? ...in a old universe with macro-evolution ... we are not special .."


In his view, anything other than the special creation of mankind would mean that we are nothing more than an evolutionary accident. And so, along with many other Christians, he opts for a Creation that is precisely engineered and micromanaged by its Creator. 


However, there are serious problems with a micromanaging God, not the least of which is vulnerability to the challenge of Epicurus (see my recent post on Epicurus and the Problem of Evil). Is there a way out of this dilemma? Is it possible that God could create a universe that evolves on its own, without his constant interventions, and still have a predictable outcome: Man, created in his own image? The answer may be found in the principle of Evolutionary Convergence.


First, a little background: Convergence, is defined by Wikepedia as “the approach toward a definite value, as time goes on.” The term has various technical and mathematical applications, and is used in many social sciences. Of interest to our discussion is the principle of convergence as it is used in evolutionary science


Convergent evolution is based upon several observed phenomena. Here are a few fascinating examples:


1) Wings, with similar aerodynamic construction, have developed independently in birds and in bats, suggesting that the wing itself is a predictable outcome, a natural adaptation waiting to be “found” by natural selection.


2) Camera-like eyes, with similar characteristics, but with significant design differences, have developed independently in mammals and cephalopods (squids and octopuses, e.g.). Interestingly, the eye of the cephalopod is of superior design. Instead of the internal wiring from the retina which results in the blind spot in our eyes, the cephalopod’s eye has external wiring, eliminating the blind spot. Still, the eye is another example of an advantageous adaptation waiting to happen!


3) Adaptive Spaces: perhaps the most compelling example of convergence in evolution is the remarkable correspondence in the fauna that developed in Australia and that which developed in the rest of the world. That is, the array of marsupial animals in Australia bear many similarities to the array of placental mammals elsewhere. It is clear that the geographical separation of these two animal groups happened very early in the evolutionary tree. And yet, within the two groups, many of the same types of animals emerged over time, suggesting that certain “adaptive spaces” or “ecological niches” were waiting to be filled, and that the random processes of natural selection were predestined to find them.


In fairness, this principle of convergence is still a matter of debate among evolutionary scientists. American evolutionary biologist Steven J. Gould famously defended the principle of contingency: he claimed that if we could turn back the clock to the beginning of evolution and start the process over, an entirely different set of living things would emerge, that every new random development is “contingent” upon those that preceded it. British paleontologist Simon Conway Morris leads the charge for the other side, making the case for convergence. He claims that our observations of phenomena suggest that if we turned back that clock and started evolution all over, a very similar set of living things would emerge. The random processes might vary, details could be different, but the ultimate outcomes might be substantially the same. The result of the process would be a set of organisms bearing remarkable similarity to that which we observe today.


I have been reading a fascinating anthology on convergence, edited by Conway Morris (and recommended to me by Isaac, a frequent OutsideTheBox commenter) which outlines the current state of convergent evolutionary science. This science suggests that the process of evolution quite naturally will find itself moving toward certain predictable outcomes, including sentience (perception, subjectivity) and intelligence.


Back to our Creationist’s objection to evolution. How does convergence impact his claim that in evolution, man is not special, that we are mere accidents, and certainly not the intended image bearers of the divine which the Bible declares us to be? Convergence suggests to me that God could create man “in his image” through unguided random natural processes; that without knowing, or needing to control, every detail of the process, the outcomes were from the very beginning quite predictable; that God used a remarkable plan to forge mankind by creating an awesome DNA language, stepping back, and watching his spectacular handiwork unfold. It suggests that it was not necessary for God to micro-manage the creative process we call evolution, or step in from time to time to tweak it, or add certain design elements into the mix. 


Since I started my quest for a deeper understanding of God and his ways, I have been looking for that principle that could wed the seemingly contradictory ideas of randomness and design. Such a principle would profoundly effect theology. The answer may lie in evolutionary convergence.


In future posts, I will seek to understand how a non-interventionist God effects theodicy (the problem of evil), and why God might have chosen such a non-interventionist approach in the first place.


Comments?

48 comments:

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

Your first diagram seems to imply some kind of equivalence between natural revelation and biblical revelation.

I understand some the natural evidence and also the rules of logic and evidence that make up the practice of science.

What is the equivalent for the bible?

What is your evidence that it isn't fiction/mistaken and how can that be tested.

I have no book to make similar claims about but we both know that there are several rivals that make exactly the same claims.

How can I test such claims and work out for myself if any of the holy books are what they claim to be?

Regards,

Psi

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

Good questions. My diagram is not intended to equate the two sources of theology, neither as equal authorities (to which many Christians would object) or as equal in scientific laws of evidence and logic (to which you understandably object).

I do think that this blog is headed toward "comparative religions" at some point. I would prefer to postpone that discussion ... though I do value any input you might have if you can look past the objection you raise.

Bear in mind that, for this post, my primary audience is Christians who already accept the Bible, but are often dubious about science. I am on the fringe of Biblical Christianity that gives a lot of weight to science (something you don't need to be convinced of, but certain Christians do!)

So, the point is not to say, "Hey, Psi, how about giving some credence to the Bible", it is to say, "Hey Christian, how about giving some credence to science."

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

I am very interested, e.g., in your thoughts about the validity of convergent evolution, and how you think it plays out. One approach might be this: Do you agree or disagree that, if there is somewhere in the cosmos another planet with a similar mix of elements and a 3.8 billion year evolutionary history, we could expect to find birds, cats, coniferous trees, beetles, and intelligent bipeds with a pair of forward looking eyes, elbows, thumbs and fingers?

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

I think you sense the danger and look away again. But then this is your blog.

- - -

Do I think there is at least one other. . .

Yes. It's an awfully big place out there.

I just finished reading "power, sex and suicide" by Nick Lane. It is about mitochondria ( the tiny little power houses in our cells ).

He has some very interesting thoughts on both the origin of life ( we seem to be spoiled for choice with a slack handful of promising possibilities ) but also on the evolution of multi cellular life. Which seems to need more specific and seemingly less common condituons than those needed for life to get going.

After reading this book my estimate of the number of planets with only bacterial life shot up considerably.

I have read around both sides of the convergence argument. It appears to me to be trivially true in that with this set of laws of physics and chemistry there are certain avenues down which evolution would naturally blindly wander. Eyes have evolved nine seperate times to the best of our knowledge for example. It seems that ours are one of the best bits of evidence against special creation with their wiring done back to front.

I was admiring an icthyosaur fossil in my lunch break yesterday. A reptile that looks just like a mammal (dolphin)

Now drawing amy conclusion other than that these things both evolved on the same planet with similar selective pressures is simply not warranted by any evidence.

Claims that humans evolved just once seems silly when we look at the homo bush/tree. What about Neanderthals. what about the other almost human species? Just as human as us maybe? But not human?

Anyone who has a pet dog will understand me when I say that we are animals and animals are human.

I mean that we see only quantitative differences between us an animals. The qualitative ones blur on close scrutiny.

You must read some Gould ( the evolution tape rewound would play back very differently ) and "thingy" er English bloke - double barreled name I think. Will post the name tomorrow. He says humans were inevitable.

Looking back at five major extinction events, one wiping out 95% of species before anything resembling us arose then I go with Gould.

So anyway ;

Bacteria planets common as muck in my book. Anyone want to bet a pound versus a punch of sh*t that at least two other places in our own solar system hold or have held life?

Multicellular life = much much rarer as mitochondria are both vital and very unlikely seeming. ( how can I really tell though when I have no real conception of how long a century is?)

Intelligent life = a precious jewel. I put the emphasis on the word intelligent and think that 14 billion years of time before the universe can start to know itself in our particularly abstract way should make us realise that human religions are just too damn small and parochial to possibly be true.

- - -

So as I lay here in bed next to my sleeping wife looking up into the nortern sky and almost thinking I can glimpse Andromeda I realise that the only drawback I can think of in being atheist is that I don't have anyone to thank. I guess I will just have to settle for trying to make life bettter for my family and my wider family of humans and make sure I pick a damn good purpose for my life. That feels almost as good as saying thanks and when you think about it a moment it is actually far far better than just saying thanks.

Dawkins summed it up just great in "unweaving the rainbow" talking about just how many possible humans there are when you look just at how many ways our genes can be shuffled. We have already won the greatest lottery there in just being here.

- - -

Sorry to waffle on. Hope that made some kind of sense. I think I might have been channeling Sagan there for a moment. ;-)

What an honour.

Regards,

psi

Psiloiordinary said...

Doh.

Simon Conway-Morris.

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

Thank you! A few responses:

Do I think there is at least one other. . .
Yes. It's an awfully big place out there.

I wasn't actually asking that. I was asking whether, given the same set of chemistries, life on another planet would substantially look like life does here. I think you answered that with your comments about Neanderthal. And I agree.

It seems that our [eyes] are one of the best bits of evidence against special creation with their wiring done back to front.
... which was exactly my point in the post, though I did not come right out and say it.

You must read some Gould ...
Yes. I have read more Conway Morris than Gould.

... 14 billion years of time before the universe can start to know itself in our particularly abstract way should make us realise that human religions are just too damn small and parochial to possibly be true.
This is one of the questions I have pondered for decades, and I am always bewildered that other Christians I meet are unfazed by it. But, Psi, I am not convinced that 14 billions years invalidates theistic, or Christian claims. The realization does suggest that the scope of the purposes and plans of the Creator are far bigger than we had imagined. In this sense, I agree that the typical Christian metanarrative is both too parochial and too self-important to be the whole story. (When I talk this way around my Christian friends, I become very unpopular!)

Anyway, you do make sense, you could stand in for Carl Sagan, and — may I be so bold — it couldn't hurt for you to say "thank you" to the God you think probably doesn't exist.

Rich G. said...

Hi, Psi:

I mean that we see only quantitative differences between us an animals. The qualitative ones blur on close scrutiny.

I'm surprised you would write this after posting your video last week.

Rich G.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi cliff,

it would do great harm if I just said thanks instead of doing those things I mentioned.

Think of it as the difference between thinking about someone getting better or giving money to medical research into their illness.

Hi Rich,

I really don't see a conflict. Where do you see qualitative rather than quantitative differences ?

Writing versus whale song?

Beaver damns/termite mounds versus Apollo.

I still see these things on the same scales.

This is not meant to either belittle humans or elevate animals. I am on the is side of the is ought divide.

When you look at the awful big pile of nothing out there then the diffrences between these things does seem to shrink to me.

Regards

psi

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

it would do great harm if I just said thanks instead of doing those things I mentioned.

I never suggested you do one instead of the other. I do both. Earlier, you said,

it (making life better for others, and carefully choosing how your spend your own) is actually far far better than just saying thanks.

Agreed! thankfully, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Psiloiordinary said...

Ok then given this I don't because it I don't think anything is listening.

I guess you don't thank the pixies for good luck do you.

Regards,

Psi

Rich G. said...

Hi, Psi:

Where do you see qualitative rather than quantitative differences ?

Writing versus whale song?

Beaver damns/termite mounds versus Apollo.

I still see these things on the same scales.


I marvel that you don't see the qualitative differences.

Having seen African termite mounds, I can see some similarity with the Apollo Saturn V rocket. They are a similar shape, color and are products of cooperative efforts of countless individuals.

But the differences are astounding:

Intentional planning
Mathematical modeling
Physical scale modeling
Drafting and production of precision components
Application of theoretical sciences
Chemistry and metallurgy
Purposeful assignment of tasks
Scheduling of work by others
Budgeting, funding and payroll
The whole conception of "vehicle"

There are a myriad of other tasks that have *no* analogues, however rudimentary, among our fellow creatures.

You may see a puma mark its territory, but it does not record a title deed.

An elephant seems to remember the dead from its herd, but they do not write names on memorial markers.

Birds construct sometimes elaborate nests, but they do not build factories to make the parts.

Bats, birds and bugs fly, but no animal constructs means to follow them.

Where are the evolutionary precursors for symbolic language, writing, science, mathematics, schools, sculpture, painting, poetry, opera, storytelling... I can go on.

I think the differences are startling - that there are so many differences concentrated in one single species seems to defy random development. While we may be able to trace a nearly continuous stream of physical development for our bodies, the abstract differences do not seem to have a parallel continuum. It looks kike something creative 'exploded' relatively recently in our ancestors.

Tom said...

Cliff,

Interesting post and perspective, as usual.

(Borrowing from one of my comments in the previous post) if you have the fitter tending to survive and reproduce in an environment of limited resources, then assemblies, and eventually strategies will evolve to interface with the physical environment.

Rich used the word "exploded". I think of the Cambrian explosion. Even though there were a few billion years of single-celled organisms, once the trigger tripped for multicellular organisms, evolution quickly filled that space and was able to do so and experiment with several variants.

Without giving it it's due diligence, for the moment, I would agree with the fusion/convergence argument over Gould's.

In my playing around with evolutionary algorithms, the game is usually played by starting with a population of random conditions and asking, "How does this map to some objective function?" You assign some measure for how "fit" an individual is to this objective. For the moment, let's say the objective is "big sea creature". The logical method is to start with a population of fish and sea creatures and see how they can be made bigger.

Evidently, Ma Nature (my phrase for God!;-)) took a rather circuitous route. She had fish develop limbs and lungs, crawl the earth, and then hop back into the ocean. The blue whale is the biggest animal that has ever existed on this planet.

My observation is that evolving such a big sea creature was not conducive using standard "aquatic" mechanisms. There was something about becoming mammal (thermoregulation?) that permitted the niche to be explored.

If you are God, and want to create beings in your image using evolution, you can start with random populations and ask "how fit are you to My Image?" and perpetually select the fitter individuals to procreate and mutate to drive individuals toward the objective function. However, the "individuals" in this scenario are already pretty complex. They started off as a random assembly that, by themselves, could potentially be close to the image of God.

Instead, nature shows that the objective function is dynamic. It started first as "What molecules can replicate under particular conditions?" (The Selfish Gene?). Then molecules assembled into single-cell bodies. The objective then became, "How can this single cell better interface with the world and replicate?" While we humans have this same generic objective, to replicate our bodies, all of the precursors along the way had to be in place for us to interact with the world and each other through action, abstract thought, and language.

While there might be an infinite number of ways of potentially existing (and an even much larger number ways as Dawkins says of non-existing), if we start with some final phenotype, it comes with its own development and phylogenetic constraints that have been determined by its evolutionary heritage. The precursor also has its evolutionary heritage, which has its heritage,.... While things will evolve to exploit niches where they can, they can only do so within certain parameters.

So, rationality. Might it be convergent? Yes, I think so, but only through the sequence of previous convergence. What I mean by that is that precursors of rationality had to also be in place and these precursors themselves could have also been convergent. For example, let's say social communication is required for demonstrating rationality. Well, that could come about through several different mechanisms.

In the end, I'm saying logical thought was in a sense inevitable, but it had to follow a particular path of previous survival objectives that could have been converged upon any number of ways. The key point, philosophically, was that there was no intent of the lower objectives to attain these higher objective capabilities nor Lamarckian intent. It's just that once these individuals chanced to find themselves at the next level, they had an evolutionary advantage that continued to evolve.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi guys,

I am not very subtly trying to make a subtle point.

So yes I agree bur at the same time can you see how we are on one side of a scale or range of behaviour and animals are on the same scale.

They don't write but they do leave messages. I could claim we are not as sophisticated at chemical communication as ants.

Many many species do use tools. We just do it better.

We are all one I suppose is what I mean. We appear to all come from a common ancestor so it's not that surprising that our behaviours are similar.

So we are much much better or quicker or more efficient at some things but that is just a matter of measurement. Quantitative.

I don't see anything qualitative as all life is related is all I was trying to say.

Man is an animal. I see nothing sacred compared to the rest of life. I suppose it's the old soul claim im getting at. If I've got one then im pretty sure my dogs have one too.

No I don't think souls really exist.

Regards,

psi

Cliff Martin said...

Tom,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Yes, I agree with most everything (in not all) you wrote. It is not a case of either Gould or Conway Morris being correct. They both are. Various contingencies along the way determine which path, of several possible paths, is taken to the inevitable convergence. At least that's how I see it at the present. And I do see that it happens without guidance. (I presume you were using Mother Nature as a figure for this seemingly guided, yet actually unguided process.)

A supposed Creator who sets it all into motion may be little concerned with those contingent pathways, and yet be 100% confident that life will prosper and culminate in worthy divine-image-bearers. That's my thesis of the moment!

An interesting side-thought: Are some pathways themselves convergent? That is, if we were to go to another earth-like planet, and find there huge marine mammals, is it likely their history would have followed a similar circuitous pathway?

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

If I may jump in here, I think both you and Rich are right on some levels. Yes, you are correct that the differences, though vast, are quantitative. But I think Rich's point is that there is a huge difference in scale here. Nothing in animal life approaches the sentience and intelligence of humankind. There are enough hints to suggest that we followed a kind of continuum in our development. But how did it happen that we came so far in such a short time while other lines of animals remained, well, animal.

For the Christian, one possible reason might be the interjection of "spirit" into the human species at some point. The gift of a soul might have greatly accelerated evolutionary development. I don't know if that is what Rich thinks, but as a theist, I am open to that idea. And, from where I sit, it seems the most plausible explanation.

Do you have an explanation?

Rich G. said...

Hi, Psi!

They don't write but they do leave messages. I could claim we are not as sophisticated at chemical communication as ants.

Many many species do use tools. We just do it better.


OK, I have granted that we see things that seem like 'human' behaviours. But they are so rudimentary and scattered throughout the created world, with no apparent development or structure like we see on the physical level. There is something creative in mankind that is lacking in the rest. And it appeared suddenly, in a geologic 'blink of an eye' compared to the biological development of the tree of life.

That you and I can look up into the night sky in wonder and amazement speaks to 'something different' about man.

The very fact that we can argue and debate these issues should be evidence enough of a difference in kind rather than degree.

Rich G.

Psiloiordinary said...

OK you guys how about the knock out blow to the convergence "hypothesis";

The five mass extinction events.

After each one we see a different kind of mass diversification.

Without just the last one then wouldn't the dinos still be here?

What about the one before?

Doesn't such an outside force of such huge magnitude (and just a bit bigger and good bye life altogether) make any claims that our twig was somehow inevitable look shaky?

Try Wonderful Life from Gould to see this point made properly.

Regards,

Psi

Psiloiordinary said...

So Cliff,

If we discover a place with just bacterial life does that disprove your thought that creator is confident of the development of life in the image of said creator?

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

Good observation on the mass extinctions. I'll have to dig deeper on that one. My initial response would be that, at the close of each extinction event, there would have been a different set of extant species. This would have temporarily resulted in a unique ecology, "out-of-balance" in a way, which would in turn favor the development of a unique fauna. As the fauna (and flora) developed and expanded, given enough time, convergence may have ultimately led each unique beginning toward the same (or very similar) end. Different path. Same end point.

As for your question, "If we discover a place with just bacterial life does that disprove your thought that creator is confident of the development of life in the image of said creator?", my answer is no.

My view is that God had no particular planet in mind when he set this process in motion. There may be 10,000 planets with bacterial life only. And there may be only two or three (or one?) with the developed, sentient, intelligent life we have here. I have maintained for some time that the answer to the "vastness of the universe" riddle is that it had to be precisely this big to ensure (by calculated odds) at least one emerging planet successfully hosting the target beings.

I know this sounds far fetched. But it really is not in the context of the big picture I see for the purpose and process of the cosmos.

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

From Conway Morris, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe.

“different starting points converge repeatedly on the same destinations” p 11

“evolutionary routes are many, but the destinations are limited.” p. 148

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

interesting.

So did Jesus go to every planet with sentient life then?

Or just us?

Re Conway Morris - yes I know that is hs view. It is hs evidence I find weak.

Regards

psi

Psi

Cliff Martin said...

Psi,

Did Jesus go to the other planets?
1) I don't know that other such planets exist.
2) I don't know if other image-bearers exist.
3) I don't know if they required redemption.
in short, I don't know. And it does not matter either way.

Re; Conway-Morris. I was not trying to prove anything in the quotes. I was only suggesting how a convergence proponent might respond to what you called the "knock out blow." As far as I can see, neither side of that question ("What about the mass extinction events?") has an iron-clad case.

Love's Door said...

Thanks Cliff. I love the way you parented your kids - micromanaging to make sure you get the best result. I am not sure of creation, but when I think of the God that you and I both know and love personally, I can appreciate some of his "micromanagement" in our lives - orchestrating events for our growth and welfare. This is not much of a scientific response, but a personal knowledge.

AMW said...

Hey, Cliff.

I'd ask the creationist a more fundamental question. If you personally are the result of a random matching between sperm and egg, does that mean God doesn't care about or have designs for your life? With 30,000 - 50,000 eggs in each female and 200 - 500 million sperm per ejaculate, the odds that he would be conceived (much less born) were microscopic.

Biology says he's the product of a purely random coupling of germ cells. My guess is that his faith can survive that. So what's the big deal with saying that humanity is the result of chance plus natural law? If anything we can say there was more built into the fabric of nature to make sure that humanity (or something similar) would arise than that the creationist would be a part of humanity.

Isaac Gouy said...

Cliff > I will seek to understand how a non-interventionist God effects theodicy (the problem of evil), and why God might have chosen such a non-interventionist approach in the first place.

Previously you told us - "I believe that God is generally non-interventionist... His intervention in the affairs of men are in response to people of faith, who invite it."

It seems you do believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men, so how can it make sense to describe that God who intervenes in the affairs of men as "generally non-interventionist"?

Cliff Martin said...

Love's Door,

Is there a difference between micro-management and intense personal interest? As they enter adulthood, I no longer micro-manage my children's lives. But I am deeply interested and personally invested in them. Is this not a closer parallel to God's dealings with us? I see him responding more than I see him planning and orchestrating. He is, to me, more a redeemer of circumstances than an engineer of them. Looking forward to face-to-face visiting with you very soon!

AMW,

Great point. And if the Calvinist wants to claim that God predetermines which cells link up, he'd need to explain why the overkill in egg and sperm production. Clearly, God works in and through random processes, processes which he himself set into motion.

Isaac,

"Generally" (as I am sure you know) does not exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Isaac Gouy said...

Cliff > "Generally" (as I am sure you know) does not exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Simply consider the number of people of faith century-by-century inviting God to intervene in the affairs of men - in this case the exceptions mount-up until they become the rule.

A God who sometimes intervenes in the affairs of men and sometimes doesn't is just a capricious Zeus.

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

I am not at all certain that God has intervened every time some religious person asked him to, but I suspect not. His interventions, in my view, would be the exception (quite rare actually, when stacked up against the flow of random events), not the rule.

Christians look forward to the day when it is the rule! That is why we pray "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." But that day is not here yet.

A capricious Zeus might be a god who decides on unpredictable whims whether to intervene or not. The God I believe in honors the faith of men and women, and intervenes consistent with his purposes (which we can know something about) when men and women (in whose charge he left this planet) invite him to do so.

Those two pictures of God may be indistinguishable to you. But they are quite distinct in my mind.

Rich G. said...

Cliff:

You wrote: I am not at all certain that God has intervened every time some religious person asked him to, but I suspect not. His interventions, in my view, would be the exception (quite rare actually, when stacked up against the flow of random events), not the rule.
[snip]
The God I believe in honors the faith of men and women, and intervenes consistent with his purposes...when men and women...invite him to do so.


I believe you to be in good company here, not at all "out on the fringe". This is the whole point C.S.Lewis was making in his "Letters to Malcom" book.

I do have two questions that have been rolling around in my head, and this thread seems like a good place for them:

1> If God is generally non-interventionist, and did not personally direct the development (evolution) of life, what does this say about his foreknowledge and omniscience? It would seem that this could lead one into the "Openness of God" theology (is it heresy?), or to the too-simple monotheist views of the Christian Scientist or the Buddhist.

2> Sometimes there seem to be "anticipatory" evolutionary developments in the transitional animal forms. In the article cited by Isaac a couple of months ago, one of the "transition" fish-like animals had recognizable humerus, radius and ulna bones in the pectoral fins, (as well as a femur & etc. in the pelvic). As these bones would become needed for the formation of future legs, wings, and arms, what evolutionary pressure could cause this early form? In the broad sense, what explanation is there for the evolutionary progress at all? What could cause the cyanobacteria to want to organize into any complex and specialized structures? The fact that it happened is a brute-force fact that cannot be denied, and we can trace the steps involved with an unmistakable precision, but I have yet to see anyone come up with a natural explanation as to why these things progressed at all.

Isaac Gouy said...

Cliff > But they are quite distinct in my mind.

Seemingly for no more reason than one of them is your God and one of them isn't.


Cliff > His interventions, in my view, would be the exception...

In your view, does God ever intervene without the invitation of people of faith?

Isaac Gouy said...

Rich G. > Sometimes there seem to be "anticipatory" evolutionary developments in the transitional animal forms.

And of course the "anticipatory" evolutionary development of noses which would would be needed as a support for eye-glasses.

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

In your view, does God ever intervene without the invitation of people of faith?

I am not dogmatic about this; but I would view most if not all of God's interventions as occurring in response to the invitation of people of faith.

Isaac Gouy said...

I agree that isn't God as Zeus - it's God as Jeeves, helping the faithful Bertie Woosters out of their predicaments in inimitable fashion.

But God as Jeeves would still seem to be a "thing" poking His fingers around in the universe.

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

You clearly do not understand Christian Theology.

... it's God as Jeeves, helping the faithful Bertie Woosters out of their predicaments in inimitable fashion.

That is precisely what God does not do. Review my previous comment: "The God I believe in honors the faith of men and women, and intervenes consistent with his purposes (which we can know something about) when men and women (in whose charge he left this planet) invite him to do so."

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

ah - an empirical claim that is testable.

Now you are talking.

What kind of testing regime can we agree on?

Regards,

psi

Isaac Gouy said...

Cliff > You clearly do not understand Christian Theology.

If I already understood your theology I wouldn't keep asking what you mean by "created" and "creation" - the same words often mean different things to different people.


Cliff > Review my previous comment

That response is no more helpful than shouting the same words when someone doesn't catch your meaning.

It makes me wonder if you are simply unfamiliar with PG Wodehouse and so do not see how Jeeves and Wooster fit your comment.

Cliff Martin said...

Rich,

In reviewing this comment thread, I realize that I left your two excellent questions hanging. I intended to respond, but life (and other comments) overran me!

1) You asked about Open Theology ...
I do not believe Openness to be heresy, and in fact subscribe to it myself. (See this earlier post on Randomness and Quantum Physics) Randomness as a principle both in science and theology fails if we assign God full foreknowledge. I’d love to discuss this at length with you some time.

2) You asked about “anticipatory” evolutionary developments ...
I find these fascinating, and would like to learn more about them. My views do not discount the possibility of the “Front Loaded” evolution concepts forwarded by Mike Gene and Michael Denton. Anticipatory mutations might well support their ideas. It would seem that if God did front load the evolutionary process that he would have specifically built the original DNA into the first living cells. This would not preclude randomness from governing the subsequent evolutionary progress.

Rich G. said...

Hi, Cliff!

I've been lying low to see if anyone else would post a serious response to my question.

I think there may be degrees of "Openness" in in peoples' personal theologies. But I also think we have to draw the line somewhere short of the Mormon view that God is still learning and growing along with us. "He's not nearly as narrow-minded as He once was." still makes me snicker.

Rich G.

Isaac Gouy said...

Cliff > It would seem that if God did front load the evolutionary process that he would have specifically built the original DNA into the first living cells.

Do you see how that reads like "God as engineering the details of the universe"?

Psiloiordinary said...

Wham - asteroid strike.

I guess that engineering needed a few corrections!

Regards,

Psi

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

Do you see how that reads like "God as engineering the details of the universe"?

No. Did you read the sentence after the one you quoted? Did you you notice that the entire thougth you quoted was suppositional? ("It would seem that if ...")

As you know, I have never claimed that God never intervenes. My point was that if (note that word, if!) he did plant a DNA seed at abiogenesis, that would not preclude his use of randomness throughout the evolutionary process.

My thoughts about the limited interventions of God create great distance between me and most Christian thought. Apparently, not enough distance to satisfy you. Sorry.

Rich G. said...

Hi, Psi!

Wham - asteroid strike.

I guess that engineering needed a few corrections!


Unless that was simply part of the whole process. During the Apollo missions, there were scheduled Course Corrections that were incorporated in the overall mission plan. Natural history is only slightly more complicated than a moon landing - maybe a "few corrections" are part of the whole process used to get us here.

Rich G.

Psiloiordinary said...

Course correction?

Wipe out 70% of species on the planet - KT

or perhaps wipe out 90% of species on the planet - Permian extinction event.

Not to mention the other three major ones and loads of minor wipe outs.

Course correction? Perhaps they lost the map?

Or maybe it was just natural randomness in the universe?

Regards,

Psi

Rich G. said...

Hi, Psi:

Wipe out 70% of species on the planet - KT
or perhaps wipe out 90% of species on the planet - Permian extinction event.
Not to mention the other three major ones and loads of minor wipe outs.


Whether planned or accidents, they were possibly essential steps. Without them, we likely wouldn't be here to have this exchange.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Rich,

Don't forget that up is up and down is down and black is black and white is white.

15 all in the absolutely bloody obvious comments game.

Back to the thread topic?

Regards,

Psi

Isaac Gouy said...

Cliff > Did you read the sentence after the one you quoted? Did you you notice that the entire thougth you quoted was suppositional?

Yes and yes - much of what you write is no more than supposition, some of it you say you believe.


Cliff > ... if (note that word, if!) he did plant a DNA seed at abiogenesis...

How would that not be "God engineering the details of the universe"?


Cliff > ...would not preclude his use of randomness throughout the evolutionary process.

How would that not be "God engineering the details of the universe"?


Cliff > My thoughts about the limited interventions of God create great distance between me and most Christian thought. Apparently, not enough distance to satisfy you.

I don't question you in judgement, I question you in an effort to make your meaning clear.

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

How would that not be "God engineering the details of the universe"?

With respect to DNA seeding:
Isn’t there a difference between “God engineering a detail of the universe” and “God engineering the details of the universe”?

With respect to God “using” randomness:
Perhaps my wording is misleading. By “using”, I do not mean manipulating. I mean employing. As when a mathmatecian “uses” random number generating software. Its not random unless he allows it to run without interference or intervention.

Isaac Gouy said...

Cliff > Isn’t there a difference between “God engineering a detail of the universe” and “God engineering the details of the universe”?

Perhaps that's something you could quibble about but obviously "detail" becomes "details" once you suppose He employs randomness.

Supposing that God engineers some arbitrary selection of details is ad hoc.