https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation#evolutionary-creation-is-distinct-from-theistic-evolution

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl2468

I wanted to memorialize what Karen Spivey said (If I remember it correctly):


Karen Spivey

// Science is not able to determine whether or not evolution is teleological. //

Wrong. And let’s be careful not to personify science, as though it were some kind of single-minded entity.

So, it seems that you do not understand science well, and thus, neither does Denis. How is that?

“I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directing Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.”

• Lord Kelvin

“Science can and does point to God’s existence, and given the massive evidence for intelligent agency in our universe, it can quite reasonably be said that God’s existence is the most thoroughly proven theory in natural science.
…
To restrict causes in natural science to causes within nature itself is to impose an ideological bias on the science and thus make science a slave of ideology instead of truth. This is obviously what atheists do when they insist upon methodological naturalism..

• Neurosurgeon, Dr Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

The fatal flaw in such claims is that evolutionary scientists ALWAYS assume design – teleology – in their research.
All while denying it.

Indeed, they have no choice to assume design and purpose. Else, no “purpose” of any biological elements can ever be deduced, which is patently absurd. As though no one can state that fly wings has the purpose of enabling flight, or that pitcher plants’ stench of rotting flesh have the purpose of attracting prey, or that brains have the purpose of thought, …

Even children can see that purpose is everywhere. But not scientists?!
Poor scientists.

As even Dawkins admits:
“The illusion of purpose is so powerful that biologists themselves USE THE ASSUMPTION OF GOOD DESIGN AS A WORKING TOOL.”

• Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden (1995) p.98

While teleology is forbidden in materialist evolution – which is neo-Darwinian evolution – the self-contradiction is salient, using the assumption of design as a working tool, cannot be avoided.

Moreover, according to every non “theistic evolutionist”, evolution is definitely NOT teleological or guided in any way. It is NOT UNDETERMINED, but absolutely DETERMINED in secular science circles. No teleology is allowed because it is automatically assumed not to exist. That is due to the crippled version of science in use, Methodological Naturalism, which is in fact, Metaphysical Naturalism in disguise as true science.

In 1978, the atheist Richard Bozarth declared in American Atheist magazine: Christianity is – must be – totally committed to the special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or foul, against the theory of evolution…. It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.

• G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist. (Feb. 1978, p. 19)

“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthy life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death: If Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is for nothing.”

• G. Richard Bozarth, in American Atheist, February, 1978, p. 30

In 1996, Frank Zindler, then president of the American Atheists, in a debate with evangelical philosopher William Lane Craig (a progressive OEC theorist), remarked:
“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin…. If there was never an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.”

• Frank Zindler, in a debate at Willow Creek Community Church with Dr. William Lane Craig. Atheism vs Christianity (video), Zondervan, 1996.

In a 2011, posts on the American Atheist website just before Christmas, we could read,
“No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No fall of man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer.”

• “You KNOW It’s a Myth: This Season, Celebrate REASON!” American Atheists, accessed June 1, 2011

And the above was Darwin’s view.

As he exposed his own hatred of Christianity:
“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

• Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley (1983). “Autobiographies”, Oxford University Press, USA

“The more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, – that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, – that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, – that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses; – by such reflections as these… I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.” (ibid)

According to his autobiography, he later eventually concluded that the Christian faith is “manifestly false,” the Bible “false” (even stating that the Christian God was a “revengeful tyrant”), and that the Christian Scriptures were “no more to be trusted than . . . the beliefs of any barbarian”.

It is astonishing that so-called Christian evolutionists, always FAIL to grasp the true nature of evolutionism.

No wonder Christian science journalist and author, Denyse O’Leary wrote,
“Christian evolutionists, so far as I can tell, live in a sort of unreal world where one espouses Darwinism while pretending not to know what it means.”

• Science journalist and author, Denyse O’Leary

Indeed.

Saying things like “if we alter variable x by y amount life can’t form” has absolutely no implications or importance if it can’t have been any other value in the first place.

Finding out what alternative models do doesn’t tell us that those alternatives were actually possible realities

He says,

According to Scripture, we’re all evil (fallen, sinful, depraved, etc.); but some of us are clearly more evil than others. Donald Trump’s entire life has been characterized by scandal and sins galore, and he personally advocates egregious evils such as abortion, homosexuality, marriage redefinition, and transgenderism. Yes, Donald Trump unquestionably IS evil—more evil than many people. The same can be said of Biden, although only God can peer inside the heart and know for sure who is the more evil of the two men. Regardless, no Christian can honor Him by supporting either.

I asked him to demonstrate the accuracy of his following claim:

Then I asked him to describe what Christ said about civic duty to civil authority in the time of Roman emperors. Is it christian to just pout and take your ball and go home and sit back and let barbarians overrun one’s country because we dont support the rulers? How did christians respond in the time of Nero?

Can Trump be redeemed?

My questions were deleted. There are answers. This crowd seem to be afraid of them.

His answer: partisan gossip.

Demonstrate why what is accurate? Trump’s scandalous reputation? His support of abortion, LGBT depravity/lunacy? If so, are you just being facetious, contrary, or what? All of this is documented fact and a matter of public knowledge. No American can claim to be oblivious to it.

The more serious question of a christian’s civic duty to a disappointing and wicked regime has been ignored. Because the scriptures do not support not doing one’s duty in a port of rebellion. God even placed Nero as ruler. And many other corrupt leaders. Those scriptures were ignored.

These folks dont really have a biblical basis for sitting out, neither do they have a scriptural basis for telling other Christians they too must sit out. I blocked him.

I remember the Mormons…just ask the bishop, deflecting because they are just parroting.

Jeremy Arnold, Parrot.

Ain’t nobody got time for this. I still dont think these folks in Iowa are any more holy than Donald Trump.

Now, is Trump in favor of homosexuality? I think he simply doesnt care about it as an issue.

Abortion? Same thing.

If someone doesnt join in on being axwarrior on social issues, that === evil?

That is what they are saying.

Maybe that is evil in an of itself. To tell someone they are not a christian because they are not a zealot, maybe that is evil. Why? You are taking over the holy spirit’s job, trying to do better than him. That is why.

David Rhoads Her moral tribe doesn’t accept what you are saying. The crows are a moral tribe, and they believe you…well, it is not just you. It is you, your family, your friends, your community, your society, follow the wrong morals. Your tribe is immoral in their opinion. The tribe of barbarian crows wants your tribe to dump their morals and flip to their crow morals. Thats what it is about to them. If people dont share their morals then people will (they fear) happily live their own lives and turn their back on them. So they lose power and influence and their crow morality becomes irrelevant. So they are trying to tell you your morals are unacceptable. You are considered morally despicable according to their standard. Not just you but your whole tribe. So your sadness means nothing because they think it is morally corrupt. This is why they criticize you so much. They are trying to shame you to get you to accept their morals. To flip.
Does that make any sense to you? You are experiencing a storm of crows. They are not your friends.

//”In your experience, what are common misconceptions? What are common objections?”//

Anti-evolutionists rely on misconceptions. In other posts I routinely point out what I refer to as the ubiquitous anti-evolutionist toolbox: 1) misrepresent Evolutionary Theory, Abiogenesis, and science in general, 2) make unsubstantiated claims of “can’t” (i.e., evolution can’t do this, or mutation and selection can’t do that), and 3) appeal to the absence of evidence for evolution while ignoring the presence of evidence for evolution.

The single-most common misconception I see is that evolution is somehow anti-God/anti-Christian (indeed, that was how I used to see it). Anti-evolutionism is all about that, and it is only about that. Ironically, this misconception is propagated by both anti-evolution creationists and by some non-theists in almost identical manner. My book “Creation and the Origin of Species” was written in direct response to it and addresses a plethora of other such misconceptions.

Another major misconception is that Evolution is represented by a sequential ladder or scale, i.e., Aristotle’s scala naturae, which dominated Western intellectual thought for centuries prior to Darwin and Aristotle’s influence persists to this day. I see this misconception almost everywhere, but outgrowths of this utilized by anti-evolutionists include “if humans came from apes then why are apes still here?” and claims made by anti-evolutionists (even well-educated ones) that the fossil record refutes evolution because some intermediate fossil forms overlap in time.

Another misconception is claims of a human-ape dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists on the genetic/genomic level. Not only are chimps & bonobos our closest genetic cousins, but we are theirs as well, being genomically more similar to them than they are to gorillas or orangutans. This misconception used to be formalized taxonomically with humans in the Family Hominidae and other great apes within the Family Pongidae (this has since been revised, with humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans within the Hominidae). This misconception also persists in the ‘Planet of the Apes’ movies.

In addition, Anti-evolutionists also have their own menagerie of pet misconceptions, such as:

1. “Micro but not macro” evolution, not realizing that macroevolution is caused by microevolution, also purposely misrepresenting the terms microevolution and macroevolution (FYI, in biology microevolution is a change in a population’s gene pool and macroevolution is the cumulative effects of microevolution that lead to changes above the species level).
2. Evolution is “random”, when the processes of gene flow, non-random mating, and natural selection are not random.
3. The claim that evolution is a religious or metaphysical theory instead of a biological theory. Ironically, Cell Theory is just as “naturalistic” as Evolutionary Theory and likewise has everything to do with the origin of a physical human body, and yet you will never find a statement of faith in opposition to Cell Theory. (There are also misconceptions as to what “Theory” means, but I’m sure somebody else here already has gotten to that).
4. Scientism, which is to say that science can potentially answer every question, even the question of God’s existence and of divine action. This relates to the common misconceptions that spiritual matters (e.g., the Image of God, accountability for sin, etc.,) necessarily have scientific/biological answers.

There are many more, but don’t have time to continue right now.

.

I was wondering if I could post the above in a facebook post.

In physics, specifically statistical mechanics, an ensemble (also statistical ensemble) is an idealization consisting of a large number of virtual copies (sometimes infinitely many) of a system, considered all at once, each of which represents a possible state that the real system might be in. In other words, a statistical ensemble is a set of systems of particles used in statistical mechanics to describe a single system.[1] The concept of an ensemble was introduced by J. Willard Gibbs in 1902.

[1] Oxford Dictionary of Physics. pp. 458

The ensemble formalises the notion that an experimenter repeating an experiment again and again under the same macroscopic conditions, but unable to control the microscopic details, may expect to observe a range of different outcomes.

The notional size of ensembles in thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and quantum statistical mechanics can be very large, including every possible microscopic state the system could be in, consistent with its observed macroscopic properties. For many important physical cases, it is possible to calculate averages directly over the whole of the thermodynamic ensemble, to obtain explicit formulas for many of the thermodynamic quantities of interest, often in terms of the appropriate partition function.

Me: OK, “including every possible microscopic state the system could be in” covers everything physical from the cosmos to biology. It boggles my mind that educated people declare “probability and statistics do not have anything to do with truth.” What about the truth of physical systems? which includes everything science deals with?

If you are talking about a God who affected the state of the universe (i.e., miracles) then you are talking about ensembles of physical states that comprise the universe having changed.

Scientists think in terms of statistics and probability. They think a physical event is believable based on it’s probability. So probability and statistics directly affect believability.

Everyone should study why the founders started this country and why it has been a good country. And how law works. Christians get so lazy. In my church nobody understands anything about government. Its all magic to them. Its very frustrating to see the ignorance.

The above has been labeled by facebook as HATE SPEECH. Saying everybody should study why the founders started this country and why it is a good country -thats HATE SPEECH to facebook. Facebook only wants BAD EVIL COUNTRIES.

by Mike Gene

On April 1, 2017 Mike Gene posted the following. I have copied it verbatim. Why? Partly to preserve it because one never knows how long a website will stay up. Also because it is well stated. BTW, Mike Gene is a nom de guerre just like my own pen name is a non de guerre. Think about Mark Twain or John Denver, for example. I mention this because people say if you write under a pen name you are dishonest.

Mike is complaining about social media, ie, the internet, but what he is saying is true for the MSM (Main Street Media) as well. I may add my own comments here or there inline with a different background color.

Here Goes:

When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivia

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

My Comment:
The Design Matrix, by Mike Gene, is a book written about origins science published around 2008. Here is a review of his book that explains why he uses a pseudonym. My personal guess is he is a biologos fan and sees nothing wrong with the concept of evolutionary theory from a scientific viewpoint, but doesn’t want to be labeled a heretic by young earth creationists and religious fanatics. I know about this subject because I myself was labeled a heretic at least 6 times in 2023. Along with CS Lewis and Billy Graham so I suppose I am in good company. A decade earlier I was labeled a heretic by a baptist pastor at a nearby church for entertaining Intelligent Design. The man said Intelligent Design is of satan.

Anyway, here is the review of Mike Gene’s book:

The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues is one of the best books I have read on the problems with Neo-Darwinism and the evidence for Intelligent Design. The author, a friend has informed me, is a professor at an Ivy league university and uses a pseudonym to avoid repercussions for questioning orthodox Neo-Darwinism. He stresses that his arguments should be accepted on their own merits, a point I agree with. He points out, correctly, that the internet can be an extremely hostile environment but, nonetheless, he learned a great deal about the now hot topic of Intelligent Design (ID) from internet discussions on his web site. There are people out there who are willing to debate this topic on a scientific level, and this book is a result of the debates Mike Gene has encountered. Dr. Gene stresses that there are people like him that are tired of the “name calling, innuendo, and political fights” and would rather debate the scientific issues. Dr. Gene stresses that he is an evolutionist and does not favor teaching ID in the schools, but does find the topic “tremendously intriguing.” And knowing what has happened to others who took this position, he wisely prefers to say in the closet. Having said this, both supporters and detractors of ID will find his book excellent. Most of the text focuses on molecular biology, cell biology, evolution, and general biology. As such, it was an excellent read and I find many of the author’s arguments very persuasive, often compelling. One example of many is the discussion of the optimized code on page 74-75 and the dozen or so complex proofreading systems covered on page 77-80. Highly recommended. I did noticed very few mistakes in the book, but I plan to reread it more carefully and may pick up some then.