Chance and diminishing domains

Steve, Mike, everyone. . .

On second thought, I completely apologize. I came into this too intense, too quickly, and I got way too wrapped up in it. So I take responsibility for everything.

I think the best plan at this point is for me to simply back off. I've got a very bad habit of running around and tipping other people's sacred cows. I won't post here anymore, and I don't want this to get any uglier than it already has.

Again, I'm very-very sorry and my time is really better spent elsewhere. I concede the argument; 100% on both threads. Thanks for the discussion.

-PJ

You completely misunderstand my position. Maybe if you read all the relevant background material (namely, my other posts!), you’d not make this mistake.

My mistake then.

Where did I say that God rolled the dice? It is precisely because of his foreknowledge that He was able to choose a system that appears random. You make tortuous distinctions in suffixes, yet miss my overarching interpretation.

So then if it merely appears random, why must it absolutely be labeled as such?

In other words, you’re upset that I showed your comments to be irrelevant. Then you try to steal the point by telling me you agree with me.

Nope. You're still blurring chance. This is quite similar to discussions I've had with atheistic evolutionists, actually. They say much the same.

You’re much more worried about what Sproul is saying than what the professor was saying. The professor was saying that natural, unguided processes control the development of the universe. This is a far cry from attributing personhood to those processes as Sproul attempts to do.

And yet still you have not actually demonstrated those natural, unguided processes.

Argument to motive. I know a guy who hates that fallacy.

Stating you could do something doesn't mean you will. Thus, not an argument to motive. I stated your advantage, yet you still have the option to accept or reject it.

I’m honestly unaware of what you’re even trying to get me to “admit to”. Perhaps you can zoom out from semantic minutiae and summarize your beef with me. I honestly don’t have time to enslave myself to clarifying points that are clear to anyone not aspiring to be Sproul’s Beza.

Thank you for your patience.

- If chance is not an agent (which is an entity), then what is it?

- Do you still accuse Sproul of misrepresentation?

- Do you still believe ID depends on an unscientific pressuposition?

No argument there. But “hard science” as you defined it has absolutely nothing to do with ID, either.

I'm politely asking for the hard proof of it.

No, PJ. My point was at the bottom. “You should say, rather, that the fact of the resurrection is consistent with your interpretation of Jesus’ statements in Scripture.” You made the extraordinary claim that your belief in the historicity of the resurrection substantiated your belief in a historiographic reading of Genesis, all while trying to pass off your own interpretation as unfiltered reality rather than as an opinion on how to interpret Scripture. Sorry man, I couldn’t let that go by without pointing out a few of the myriad assumptions that you claim serves as evidence for your conjecture.

Nope. Any assumptions otherwise would rule out Christ as Lord.

Who’s “questioning” them? My point is that Genesis 1 was not originally formulated as a scientific, historical account to begin with. And don’t let the “Moses” thing confuse you: he came to be so closely associated with the Torah that Jews of the time often referred to it as “Moses”. It’s called metonymy. Or maybe you would say that the Torah is a being because it has a name.

You're still assuming that I use Gen 1 to validate the existence of a God. Rather, the proof of the resurrection is what validates Gen 1 as fact. Not the deed itself, but everything surrounding it as well. From an apologetics POV, the resurrection is the stepping off point for believers.

PJ: This is not a new thought* by any means. Jesus was an orthodox Jew. He came not to abolish the law (Torah) but to fulfill it. He takes Matt 5:17-20 to such an absolute that no one was willing to deal with it on that level…

Steve: Once again, who said anything about abolishing the Law?

Good. Then my saying that the risen Savior took Gen 1 as literal isn't merely an interpretation on my part. He didn't allow liberal interpretations about the Old Testament in other areas.

PJ: Would you accept Mark 2:27 as an answer?

Steve: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath”? Accept that as an answer to what? That early Genesis was historical narrative? Au contraire, mon ami,: if you take Genesis 1 as historical narrative, the seventh day was made for God’s rest, not man’s. Could Jesus be pulling out a theological truth embedded in a *gasp* non-historical passage of Scripture? What’s next, speaking in parables?

You mean Genesis 2, right? The point being that a seventh day was created by God in a literal sense and Jesus uses it in the literal context. The sabbath "day" in question being either "eon" or "yom." You cannot say God created the eon for man. I've had some long; lazy Sundays, but that's ridiculous.

Also, your statement, ". . .if you take Genesis 1 as historical narrative, the seventh day was made for God’s rest, not man’s" would run contrary to Christ's statement. But Gen 2:2 only states God rested. He paused. He didn't sleep. He didn't tire. It is as Jesus said, God didn't require it for Himself, but for the creation. If it were otherwise, Jesus would not contradict God. This was an object lesson and a sign to Adam and given by divine revelation to Adam. God paused on the 7th day both to teach and so that He would not be looked to for an excuse to work on the Sabbath.

PJ: If Jesus didn’t cherrypick from Genesis (Matt 24:38), does that mean we can?

Steve: Goodness gracious, man, think of what you’re saying here. Each book has to be all of a uniform genre? *cough*Isaiah*cough* Besides, you’re still under the impression that evaluating every passage and using it as it was intended to be used is “cherrypicking”. Non sequitur.

I am fairly aware of what I'm saying. I don't see what this has to do with Isaiah. Jesus clearly referred to Genesis as history. I don't ever recall Him using one symbol to explain another symbol either.

PJ: Would you accept Mark 10:6 as an answer?

Steve: Here again, I accept early Genesis as much as any part of Genesis. In the passage you mention, Jesus was validating one of the truths that Genesis teaches (the division of the sexes and unification of them in marriage), as the Son of God was wont and well within His rights to do.

Then why didn't He say "From the beginning of the creation, God first created many asexual and then they gradually evolved into two male/female mammals"???

As for the “from the beginning of creation”, there’s good cause to make the “creation” refer to the creation of the sexes; 2Pet 3.6 defines the exact same Greek phrase (ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως) to the time “since the fathers fell asleep”.

I don't see your connection with 2Pet 3:4. It would appear Peter supports a literal account as well. Also, there is no mention in Genesis of a neanderthal race that co-existed with man.

I’m about to start rehashing things I wrote about in the Bibliology and hermeneutics series. You seemed baffled by and even unaware of some of my beliefs, even though this very blog would help you out.

I think it's best for me not to assume anything at this point. I'm actually glad I didn't come in with anything to accuse you of at the outset. I'm not even sure if your own beliefs are what you currently assent to, or if they're genuine convictions. Like you said, you weren't prepared to be parsed or analyzed or whatever.

PJ: However, the foundational element of this is the presupposition, “there are actual causes that are unknown.” Well then, how can you say these causes exist without being known in the first place? This is essentially saying “A equals Non-A in the same time and in the same place.”

Steve: No it’s not - that’s awful logic! It’s called a scientific postulation. We’ve covered this. If you don’t postulate that there are unseen causes for currently unexplained processes (gravity, for instance), you’ve got God really micromanaging all the unknowns, which is back to God-of-the-gaps

Doesn't matter. It's still an unknown. Yet you appear to be very quick to immediately rule out God as even being capable of micromanaging everything all at once. Almost as if you ignored the book of Job. Almost as if you're limiting omnipotence.

In either case, ID isn't another "God-of-the-gaps" argument, because there are no gaps in design. Design does not evolve. Therefore, the only gaps are in ET.

PJ: You are essentially saying that chance merely appears random, yet the reality behind the so-called “illusion” here are simply more unknowns.

Steve: I’m not essentially saying it: I stated it outright in my second reply to you.

Then with nothing but an unknown for support, you cannot prove it merely appears random. Because your explanation for how the rabbit comes out of the hat is nothing more than "I dunno."

Scientific Postulate: "There are actual causes that are unknown.”

PJ: What causes?

SP: We don't know.

PJ: Then how do you know they're even causes to begin with?

SP: We "just do."

PJ: Have you considered design theory here? It really looks like--

SP (covering ears): NOOOO! It only appears designed!

PJ: Then what is it really?

SP: Random mutation.

PJ: Random = chance.

SP: No. Not chance. It merely apears random! There are actual causes that are unknown.

PJ: What causes?

SP: We don't know.

*rimshot*

WASH, RINSE, REPEAT.

PJ: Unknowns that in fact. . .actually exist (*groan*), but cannot be identified.

Steve: Um…yeah. Do you not believe there exist such things as unknowns?

Yes. It is rational to state, "I assert there are still unknowns." However, it is not rational to hold out forever for that unknown to become something that supports your thesis. All you're saying is, "just wait, I'll show you I'm right once my evidence finally shows up."

ID beat you to it already. Not only that, but it does nothing to support the vast right wing conspiracy, because once the pagans catch on, we're going to pine for those simpler; bygone days when Darwinism was still the dominant theory.

Oh yeah, you’re Reformed (sorry, Mike!), which means you probably recoil at the very concept of “unknowns” and posit God as behind everything unknown…sorta like ID…

"Probably" but no. . .not really. I'll say that statement wasn't an argument to motive on your part just because I'm Reformed, okay?

The unknown stops right there. You cannot fill in the unknown with your conjectures and call it valid. When you hypothesize what the unknowns are (maybe, could be, perhaps, etcetera), that's when you risk lying to yourself.

Darwinism has been around for quite awhile now; supported mainly by a lot of "maybe, could be, perhaps," stories. Now there's a new challenger in the ring. May the better theory win.

-PJ

You don’t see a problem with that? Now you’re using a god-of-the-gaps. I’m shocked. I really didn’t expect you to say “God rolled the dice” here. In order to avoid chance as an entity unto itself, you simply attached a handle on chance and then gave it to an entity to utilize. It completely blows my mind that you can settle on that conclusion. It also states that God didn’t have a plan. His foreknowledge comes into question. Even His omnipotence.

You completely misunderstand my position. Maybe if you read all the relevant background material (namely, my other posts!), you'd not make this mistake. Where did I say that God rolled the dice? It is precisely because of his foreknowledge that He was able to choose a system that appears random. You make tortuous distinctions in suffixes, yet miss my overarching interpretation.

But not in English. English doesn’t use instrumental case. Maybe Old English, but. . .I don’t believe you’d bend over backwards like that.

I thought you said you were "something of a linguist" (maybe you speak/read another language and think that's what "linguist" means)? I wasn't talking about the morphology, but the semantics. English, as any language, has to have a way of expressing the instrument theme, but, due to sound change and the resulting collapse of the case system, it does it nowhere near as well as the morphology of early Old English did (even if we retained the dative case as later Old English did, it would be so much better). To be fair, perhaps you were thrown off by my guess as to the origin of the adjectival -al suffix you were so troubled by; the instrumental case was identified and named before the fields of syntax and semantics that also use the term adopted it.

Sorry, I’m ahead of myself. The point is that implying hyper-deduction on my part and then throwing it into an inductive extreme is dirty pool at best.

In other words, you're upset that I showed your comments to be irrelevant. Then you try to steal the point by telling me you agree with me.

But that is where the deception sits. If chance is not an entity, then what is it? Sproul did give an honest space for unseen factors in the determination of the flipping of the coin. You can guess all day what those factors are, but until you come to the right one, chance will remain an X variable. This is all Sproul is saying.

You're much more worried about what Sproul is saying than what the professor was saying. The professor was saying that natural, unguided processes control the development of the universe. This is a far cry from attributing personhood to those processes as Sproul attempts to do.

It’s only a bad argument based on “say so” which doesn’t necessarily make it so. The strong advantage on your part is that you can continually spin this discussion away until I simply give up. You don’t have to honestly admit to anything. All you have to do is hold out for the one white crow long enough until I go away. Determining the truth or coming to an agreement doesn’t really matter, does it?

Argument to motive. I know a guy who hates that fallacy. I'm honestly unaware of what you're even trying to get me to "admit to". Perhaps you can zoom out from semantic minutiae and summarize your beef with me. I honestly don't have time to enslave myself to clarifying points that are clear to anyone not aspiring to be Sproul's Beza.

So then which is more valid. . .the science itself, or the hypotheticals you’re holding out on? I claim the hard science.

No argument there. But "hard science" as you defined it has absolutely nothing to do with ID, either.

But that’s just for the sake of argument; not truth.

No, PJ. My point was at the bottom. "You should say, rather, that the fact of the resurrection is consistent with your interpretation of Jesus’ statements in Scripture." You made the extraordinary claim that your belief in the historicity of the resurrection substantiated your belief in a historiographic reading of Genesis, all while trying to pass off your own interpretation as unfiltered reality rather than as an opinion on how to interpret Scripture. Sorry man, I couldn't let that go by without pointing out a few of the myriad assumptions that you claim serves as evidence for your conjecture.

The limitations are with the individual’s willingness to accept the Biblical record as valid evidence. You can always raise the bar on the standard of evidence in deference to your will. However, this standard should also apply to everything else you already accept as historically valid. Sadly, the hypocrisy of this fluctuant standard is lost on such individuals.

That it is. And on a point of solidarity, I often say that even if we concede for sake of argument that the Gospels carry only as much historical weight as other contemporaneous histories such as Josephus, we've still got a resurrection, which, outside of aliens and a few other cheeseball possibilities, is too marvelous an occurrence to be ignored.

More to the point, where did Jesus give us the authority to question the books of Moses, when He Himself clearly didn’t? Are you asking this because you’re convinced that I don’t have an answer, or because you assume the info is not there?

Who's "questioning" them? My point is that Genesis 1 was not originally formulated as a scientific, historical account to begin with. And don't let the "Moses" thing confuse you: he came to be so closely associated with the Torah that Jews of the time often referred to it as "Moses". It's called metonymy. Or maybe you would say that the Torah is a being because it has a name.

This is not a new thought* by any means. Jesus was an orthodox Jew. He came not to abolish the law (Torah) but to fulfill it. He takes Matt 5:17-20 to such an absolute that no one was willing to deal with it on that level...

Once again, who said anything about abolishing the Law?

Would you accept Mark 2:27 as an answer?

"Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath"? Accept that as an answer to what? That early Genesis was historical narrative? Au contraire, mon ami,: if you take Genesis 1 as historical narrative, the seventh day was made for God's rest, not man's. Could Jesus be pulling out a theological truth embedded in a *gasp* non-historical passage of Scripture? What's next, speaking in parables?

If Jesus didn’t cherrypick from Genesis (Matt 24:38), does that mean we can?

Goodness gracious, man, think of what you're saying here. Each book has to be all of a uniform genre? *cough*Isaiah*cough* Besides, you're still under the impression that evaluating every passage and using it as it was intended to be used is "cherrypicking". Non sequitur.

Would you accept Mark 10:6 as an answer?

Here again, I accept early Genesis as much as any part of Genesis. In the passage you mention, Jesus was validating one of the truths that Genesis teaches (the division of the sexes and unification of them in marriage), as the Son of God was wont and well within His rights to do. As for the "from the beginning of creation", there's good cause to make the "creation" refer to the creation of the sexes; 2Pet 3.6 defines the exact same Greek phrase (ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως) to the time "since the fathers fell asleep".

I'm about to start rehashing things I wrote about in the Bibliology and hermeneutics series. You seemed baffled by and even unaware of some of my beliefs, even though this very blog would help you out.

However, the foundational element of this is the presupposition, “there are actual causes that are unknown.” Well then, how can you say these causes exist without being known in the first place? This is essentially saying “A equals Non-A in the same time and in the same place.”

No it's not - that's awful logic! It's called a scientific postulation. We've covered this. If you don't postulate that there are unseen causes for currently unexplained processes (gravity, for instance), you've got God really micromanaging all the unknowns, which is back to God-of-the-gaps.

You are essentially saying that chance merely appears random, yet the reality behind the so-called “illusion” here are simply more unknowns.

I'm not essentially saying it: I stated it outright in my second reply to you.

Unknowns that in fact. . .actually exist (*groan*), but cannot be identified.

Um...yeah. Do you not believe there exist such things as unknowns? Oh yeah, you're Reformed (sorry, Mike!), which means you probably recoil at the very concept of "unknowns" and posit God as behind everything unknown...sorta like ID...

I missed something that really demands attention here.

What is behind the illusion is that there are actual causes that are unknown, e.g. chemicals in the environment that may have influenced a particular genetic sequencing, so “randomness” becomes a name for occurrences determined by factors that are too many and too minute to be reconstructable on a practical level.

However, the foundational element of this is the presupposition, "there are actual causes that are unknown." Well then, how can you say these causes exist without being known in the first place? This is essentially saying "A equals Non-A in the same time and in the same place."

You are essentially saying that chance merely appears random, yet the reality behind the so-called "illusion" here are simply more unknowns.

Unknowns that in fact. . .actually exist (*groan*), but cannot be identified.

-PJ

Steve: "Calling my bluff, eh? Gladly. . .I think I did that with 2) above. But additionally, my position is that God used chance as the means by which the universe as currently configured came to be."

You don't see a problem with that? Now you're using a god-of-the-gaps. I'm shocked. I really didn't expect you to say "God rolled the dice" here. In order to avoid chance as an entity unto itself, you simply attached a handle on chance and then gave it to an entity to utilize.

It completely blows my mind that you can settle on that conclusion. It also states that God didn't have a plan. His foreknowledge comes into question. Even His omnipotence. Even Acts 1:24 clealy states they were all casting lots in appeal to God's determinative "choice." Because pure randomness is not an entity unto itself.

God (talking to Himself): Let there be light by means of. . .um, chance.

*waiting. . .waiting*

God: Hold on a moment, now! I'm not a deist. I created all the factors that play into chance. That's why they don't allow me in the Las Vegas city limits! Or Reno for that matter! Furthermore, I know of every variable that plays into chance. There is no law that is seen or unseen that I didn't create (Rom 4:17b). So. . .let there be light.

*LIGHT*

God: That's good.

Steve: "Ah! I see your confusion. An “instrumental” is a noun in linguistic analysis in the same way “dative” and “accusative” are, probably formed by ellipsis of “instrumental case”, etc. “Dative of means” and “instrumental of means” are parallel."

>_< -!!!

But not in English. English doesn't use instrumental case. Maybe Old English, but. . .I don't believe you'd bend over backwards like that.

Steve: "It’s inference and induction. As Hume and Popper noted, all science is based upon induction, which does not yield absolute truth, but relative probabilities. You’re asking more from science than it claims for itself, and certainly more than I claim for it. By your terms, there is no such thing as “hard science”, since the key function of scientists making predictions depends on a universe that continues as we have observed it to without changing things around on us when we’re not looking: when we discover a drug that cures a disease, we assume (postulate inductively, by “imagination” as you put it) that, all factors taken into account, this drug will cure cancer in all situations without any exceptions."

I get it. I get it. Anyone invoking induction and Hume is taking the high ground at the cost of their own sanity and bringing all scientific laws into question. All you did by invoking Hume was smack the bottom of the checkerboard and send the pieces flying into the air.

The fault of inductive reasoning is that it limits itself to human intent and imagination. Unintended consequences and surprising discoveries can be found to exist before we think of the possibility of it. Much of science is based on a reaction to something that was not inductively or deductively reasoned beforehand. It does not come about by adding known criteria, and it does not come about by our imagining an unseen factor. But rather we simply discover it and ask, "Well, this is new. How did that happen?"

Induction and deduction begin with man, where many things happen in spite of what we were imagining up or even paying attention to at the time. Hume's reasoning is limited to what man is currently focusing on and imagining as a result of what is being observed at the time. Where does surprise play into this? In order for induction to be acceptable, even the concept of order must come into question. It is an attempt to make chaos appear reasonable.

Sorry, I'm ahead of myself. The point is that implying hyper-deduction on my part and then throwing it into an inductive extreme is dirty pool at best.

Steve: "Did you notice that right above I just said, “You’re asking more from science than it claims of itself”? When you read this, did you assume that I, with this obviously anthropomorphic statement, actually posit a personal entity named “Science”?"

Yes. Yes I did. And you're deliberately attempting to roll me at this point.

You are correct that science's "claims of itself" are limited by falsifiability. But that is also a "known" law. And induction is always one step ahead of the law. See, we're drifting into the law of non-contradiction here. I think purposefully so on your part. You're playing a philosophical shell game with me where you reserve the right to say, "I can imagine something to oppose you," without actually having to bring it.

Steve: "Scientists would look at you like you sprouted a second head if they realized folks like you don’t get the metaphor they use. Come on, PJ, it’s basic language comprehension skills. Ask any fourth-grader if the professor’s statement was to be construed as postulating an entity named “Chance”. We’re not going to start excising the tools of humans of language just so we can avoid these kinds of nitpicking quibbles. Is that all you guys have?"

But that is where the deception sits. If chance is not an entity, then what is it? Sproul did give an honest space for unseen factors in the determination of the flipping of the coin. You can guess all day what those factors are, but until you come to the right one, chance will remain an X variable. This is all Sproul is saying.

You agree with this privately and in principle, but you're trying to talk around the inevitability of it as if it were some other valid construct. I think you simply don't want to accept it, and you're citing your imagination (induction) as valid currency. Sorry, I simply cannot accept IOUs.

Steve: "Sproul certainly didn’t offer much else in this interview. Until he does, I stand by my statement that Christians will not make any inroads with these people or even seriously challenge them if they continue to use bad arguments like this."

It's only a bad argument based on "say so" which doesn't necessarily make it so. The strong advantage on your part is that you can continually spin this discussion away until I simply give up. You don't have to honestly admit to anything. All you have to do is hold out for the one white crow long enough until I go away. Determining the truth or coming to an agreement doesn't really matter, does it?

It's certainly debatable that I may be asking more from science than it claims itself, but one thing for sure is that you're giving your imagined "what ifs" far more value than the imagination they're founded upon. Even over the limits of science. So then which is more valid. . .the science itself, or the hypotheticals you're holding out on? I claim the hard science.

Steve: "This is an interesting argument. You’re saying that the fact of the resurrection proves that how you interpret Jesus’ statements is the correct interpretation."

Correct.

Steve: "Actually, assuming the historicity of the resurrection (as I do) doesn’t even validate the truth of Jesus’ statements (what they actually meant, regardless of your interpretation), since 1) other things could account for the resurrection than Jesus’ claims of deity (e.g., if Jesus were a deceptive alien, of a species that regenerates; even if Jesus were a fallible man He could still have been resurrected, etc.), and. . ."

But that's just for the sake of argument; not truth. Number 1 here, runs into the question of whether Jesus really died or not (and I dunno if you really want to go there or not).

C.S. Lewis or Occam's Razor takes care of the "deceptive alien" hypothesis respectively. I mean, come on. . .just because you can imagine an ulterior motive doesn't automatically make it valid.

So when you state that you assume the historicity of the resurrection, you also want an arbitrary amount of hyper-skepticism to come into play. As if that were a virtue unto itself.

Steve: "2) the record of Jesus’ statements could be inaccurate. You should say, rather, that the fact of the resurrection is consistent with your interpretation of Jesus’ statements in Scripture. There are some serious limitations to Sproul’s evidentialism."

The limitations are with the individual's willingness to accept the Biblical record as valid evidence. You can always raise the bar on the standard of evidence in deference to your will. However, this standard should also apply to everything else you already accept as historically valid. Sadly, the hypocrisy of this fluctuant standard is lost on such individuals.

Steve: "A yom is inded a yom; I believe Genesis 1 is talking about literal 24 hour days, in the same way that I believe that the prodigal son was a literal son - within the non-historiographic narrative. But I’m curious: where did Christ confirm that a yom is 24 hours? Where did He demand creationism?"

More to the point, where did Jesus give us the authority to question the books of Moses, when He Himself clearly didn't? Are you asking this because you're convinced that I don't have an answer, or because you assume the info is not there?

This is not a new thought* by any means. Jesus was an orthodox Jew. He came not to abolish the law (Torah) but to fulfill it. He takes Matt 5:17-20 to such an absolute that no one was willing to deal with it on that level. "Hath God truly said, [X]???" Yes. Yes He did.

Do you only accept the quoted words of Jesus alone as inspired scripture? Would you accept Mark 2:27 as an answer? Or would you deliberately set the bar higher? If Jesus didn't cherrypick from Genesis (Matt 24:38), does that mean we can? Would you accept Mark 10:6 as an answer?

I'm beginning to tire of the bar being continually re-set.

-PJ

*Whereas "ID is not an ID card" and "Sagan's Contact is in your genome" truly are.

Please use your examples 1, 2, and 3 above in an example sentence in each context please. Don’t just assert the semantic distinction, please demonstrate it. Oh, I almost forgot. We’re not talking about the word “by” but rather “chance.”

Calling my bluff, eh? :) Gladly.
1) manner: "By chance, I have a cousin named P.J." My having a cousin called P.J. is not caused by chance, but instead happens in a way characterized by random chance (manner).
2) means: "The eleven apostles decided to find a replacement for Judas by chance rather than by overt divine revelation." In other words, they used a system of chance - casting lots - to choose Matthias.
3) agent: "This wine was chosen by Chance, who prefers brighter reds such as Cabernet Sauvignon over whites." The operative word here, of course, is "who".

Please demonstrate how chance is a means without invoking it as an entity. Take all the time you want.

I think I did that with 2) above. But additionally, my position is that God used chance as the means by which the universe as currently configured came to be.

Also the grammatical error I was referring to were the phrases “instrumental of manner” and “instrumental of means.”

Ah! I see your confusion. An "instrumental" is a noun in linguistic analysis in the same way "dative" and "accusative" are, probably formed by ellipsis of "instrumental case", etc. "Dative of means" and "instrumental of means" are parallel.

That’s faith. That’s imagination. This is not tested, and therefore not hard science. Conjecture of a definition is not a definition. Both Crichton and Feynman would have a lot to say about this.

It's inference and induction. As Hume and Popper noted, all science is based upon induction, which does not yield absolute truth, but relative probabilities. You're asking more from science than it claims for itself, and certainly more than I claim for it. By your terms, there is no such thing as "hard science", since the key function of scientists making predictions depends on a universe that continues as we have observed it to without changing things around on us when we're not looking: when we discover a drug that cures a disease, we assume (postulate inductively, by "imagination" as you put it) that, all factors taken into account, this drug will cure cancer in all situations without any exceptions.

In any case, if “randomness” is spoken of as an entity, then it becomes one. We should take Sproul’s advice and cease behaving as if it were an entity. If we are giving the scientific community permission to speak of it as an entity when it really isn’t, then that is deception.

Did you notice that right above I just said, "You're asking more from science than it claims of itself"? When you read this, did you assume that I, with this obviously anthropomorphic statement, actually posit a personal entity named "Science"? Scientists would look at you like you sprouted a second head if they realized folks like you don't get the metaphor they use. Come on, PJ, it's basic language comprehension skills. Ask any fourth-grader if the professor's statement was to be construed as postulating an entity named "Chance". We're not going to start excising the tools of humans of language just so we can avoid these kinds of nitpicking quibbles. Is that all you guys have? Sproul certainly didn't offer much else in this interview. Until he does, I stand by my statement that Christians will not make any inroads with these people or even seriously challenge them if they continue to use bad arguments like this.

Re: ECT. Woops! Egg on my face :) I found the annihilationist thing incredibly surprising. I do remember something about the ECT you're referring to. I suppose for Sproul, participation with (your) ECT would amount to (my) ECT. ;)

You must necessarily begin from the evidence of the resurrection and then that validates everything-everything Jesus stated about Moses, Abraham, Noah, and then Adam.

This is an interesting argument. You're saying that the fact of the resurrection proves that how you interpret Jesus' statements is the correct interpretation. Actually, assuming the historicity of the resurrection (as I do) doesn't even validate the truth of Jesus' statements (what they actually meant, regardless of your interpretation), since 1) other things could account for the resurrection than Jesus' claims of deity (e.g., if Jesus were a deceptive alien, of a species that regenerates; even if Jesus were a fallible man He could still have been resurrected, etc.), and 2) the record of Jesus' statements could be inaccurate. You should say, rather, that the fact of the resurrection is consistent with your interpretation of Jesus' statements in Scripture. There are some serious limitations to Sproul's evidentialism.

A yom is a yom. Not because I claim just any Rabbi as my authority, but the risen Savior as the confirmation of my belief in creationism. I’m merely waiting for the science to catch up.

A yom is inded a yom; I believe Genesis 1 is talking about literal 24 hour days, in the same way that I believe that the prodigal son was a literal son - within the non-historiographic narrative. But I'm curious: where did Christ confirm that a yom is 24 hours? Where did He demand creationism?

My apologies. I wasn't parsing to attack necessarily, but rather to take your statements and run with them as tried and true fact.

Kicking the tires when you're in the showroom doesn't mean you hate the dealer. :D

Steve: "There is no grammatical error here. We (linguists) observe multiple semantic distinctions for single words based upon their contexts, even for function words such as prepositions."

Great! I'm (hehe) something of a linguist myself. I assert it is not a clever misrepresentation, but rather that Sproul considered the subject deeply, and is simply speaking the truth.

*pushing stack of chips fwd.*

Please use your examples 1, 2, and 3 above in an example sentence in each context please. Don't just assert the semantic distinction, please demonstrate it. Oh, I almost forgot. We're not talking about the word "by" but rather "chance."

Please demonstrate how chance is a means without invoking it as an entity. Take all the time you want.

Also the grammatical error I was referring to were the phrases "instrumental of manner" and "instrumental of means."

Shouldn't it be rendered:

"instrument of manner" and "instrument of means."

OR

"instrumental manner" and "instrumental means." (???)

The suffix "al" changes everything. Using it along with "of" makes the whole completely ambiguous. Please clarify.

Steve: "What is behind the illusion is that there are actual causes that are unknown, e.g. chemicals in the environment that may have influenced a particular genetic sequencing, so “randomness” becomes a name for occurrences determined by factors that are too many and too minute to be reconstructable on a practical level."

That's faith. That's imagination. This is not tested, and therefore not hard science. Conjecture of a definition is not a definition. Both Crichton and Feynman would have a lot to say about this.

In any case, if "randomness" is spoken of as an entity, then it becomes one. We should take Sproul's advice and cease behaving as if it were an entity. If we are giving the scientific community permission to speak of it as an entity when it really isn't, then that is deception.

Steve: "I confess that I do not follow your reasoning for the rest of your comment. My criticism of ID is in essence in no way dependent on the argument to motive; my perception of their motives is, however, my motivation for pursuing this topic and seeing anyone beholden to ID for those motives disabused of them. Of course ID makes no overt claims about who is responsible: but by definition those who argue for an intelligent designer are arguing for some sort of supreme being, and so it is no fantastic inference that those who both already believe in a supreme being and hold a scriptural interpretation that demands special creation are the first to latch on to it. Does this make ID wrong? Of course not. The “motive fallacy” does not apply to my comments".

The true believer (especially the Gentile) will not require a "Genesis-to-Emmaus" foundation for the gospel. Among many on the evangelical right, it's almost as if they're invoking another council of Jerusalem. It's completely silly. You don't have to come through the gospel exclusively via circumcision or the Torah. The gospel is more powerful when retconned. The gospel to the the world is rather supposed to be "Emmaus-to-Genesis." You must necessarily begin from the evidence of the resurrection and then that validates everything-everything Jesus stated about Moses, Abraham, Noah, and then Adam.

Christians don't need creationism. It's both a distraction and probably the strongest delaying tactic an atheist has. The atheist can stall indefinitely if he can twist you up in the whole "god-of-the-gaps" argument.

That being said, if the motive fallacy indeed does not apply to your arguments, then that's neither here nor there. It's still currently the most popular one there is.

I think the scientists should be left to investigate the science of design and information theory without oppression, and the theologians should be left to teach the faith. Judging by what is stated in the video, I think Stein and Sproul want this as well.

Steve: "I like Sproul, and listen to his podcast daily. (Side note: I did not realize he does not favor ECT - is he an annihilationist? A conditional immortality proponent?) "

ECT = Evangelicals and Catholics Together. This was a popular interfaith movement that wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater for the sake of friendship.

Steve: "What happens if they win the day? How safe will eeevilutionists be in their tenure then?"

A. That's jumping the gun.
B. That's assuming these who are as you say, "the first to latch onto [ID]" will have a code of fair play and forgiveness that goes along with their spiritual conviction, no?
C. Tenure is pretty much aspiring to apathy IMO. One of the worst ideas ever.
D. These professors won't lose their jobs overnight. *sigh* More's the pity.

Steve: "Is it even possible in your mind that ToE could ever be proved to be accurate and ID inaccurate? If so, would it challenge your theology? You’ve got to consider the effect that motives can have on someone’s resolute commitment to an idea."

This is a good question. But the "what if" argument gets us no further than that one girl who asked essentially the same question of Richard Dawkins. However, unlike him, I will answer it directly.

It's like a theological poker game. If I'm holding the better hand, I'm putting all my chips on the table. All of them. And I think I do hold the better hand, because I have a hole card that can do the job just fine-- even if the scientists never-ever settle the issue (see above).

But we're still waiting for it to play out. I'm good, because I know I'll break even. A yom is a yom. Not because I claim just any Rabbi as my authority, but the risen Savior as the confirmation of my belief in creationism. I'm merely waiting for the science to catch up.

And I'm guessing if you rolled the same past Stein and Sproul, they would agree with me.

-PJ

You cannot simply stop at “appears random” without clarifying what it is behind the illusion you claim is there.

What is behind the illusion is that there are actual causes that are unknown, e.g. chemicals in the environment that may have influenced a particular genetic sequencing, so "randomness" becomes a name for occurrences determined by factors that are too many and too minute to be reconstructable on a practical level.

Grammatical errors [sic] aside, the onus is upon you to explain this. “Manner” is necessarily indicative of an entity. But you don’t want chance to be an entity, or else it will fall into Sproul’s advantage. If chance is not an entity, or an instrument of means, then what it chance?

There is no grammatical error here. We (linguists) observe multiple semantic distinctions for single words based upon their contexts, even for function words such as prepositions. "By" can be used to reference

1) the manner in which an action happens, which is what the professor meant when he said the universe came about "by chance", i.e., in a non-teleological fashion,
2) the means (instrumental proper, as used by an agent) by which it happens,
3) the agent himself (a personal agent) who is responsible.

Number 1 is an instrumental of manner, and numbers 2 and 3 are instrumentals of means in a generic sense, and it was this grouping of them together under the name that I meant in my OP, but I was referring specifically to the agentive meaning. My point was that Sproul, as Demar has done, tried to apply a reductio ad absurdum to the professor's statement by making it appear as if the professor were claiming some being named "Chance" did something. I have amended the OP accordingly. (I really didn't expect someone to come along and parse these terms so finely :) Not that I'm complaining - I welcome this sort of interaction!)

I confess that I do not follow your reasoning for the rest of your comment. My criticism of ID is in essence in no way dependent on the argument to motive; my perception of their motives is, however, my motivation for pursuing this topic and seeing anyone beholden to ID for those motives disabused of them. Of course ID makes no overt claims about who is responsible: but by definition those who argue for an intelligent designer are arguing for some sort of supreme being, and so it is no fantastic inference that those who both already believe in a supreme being and hold a scriptural interpretation that demands special creation are the first to latch on to it. Does this make ID wrong? Of course not. The "motive fallacy" does not apply to my comments.

I also think that what he wants (as well as Stein for that matter), is just to keep the discussion going. Nothing more. Each man can only move the ball so far down the field.

I like Sproul, and listen to his podcast daily. (Side note: I did not realize he does not favor ECT - is he an annihilationist? A conditional immortality proponent?) I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that he preempted one of his theological lessons from the Bible for a criticism of evolutionary theory not out of inconsistency, but because he thinks it a theological issue. And I don't think he wants to keep a discussion going any more than scientists do; as long as they're in the minority, ID advocates will insist on equal treatment. What happens if they win the day? How safe will eeevilutionists be in their tenure then?

Is it even possible in your mind that ToE could ever be proved to be accurate and ID inaccurate? If so, would it challenge your theology? You've got to consider the effect that motives can have on someone's resolute commitment to an idea.

Good discussion, PJ!

Steve: "I’m stating nothing of the sort. But are you actually suggesting the intelligent design does not posit an intelligent designer? And just what sort of a designer do you expect us to think you’re talking about? Ideas have consequences."

Yes. I am stating that any indication of the specific identity of the designer is not supported by the science of ID, while at the same time, the science of ID is still capable of standing alone.

I am stating that you can take the material presented by Behe and Co. and slap any supernatural name-tag on it that you want. ID proponents are only taking their cultural POV along for the ride, and the science isn't changed.

Boiling it down, all this really amounts to is a rather inverted version of "Contact" by Carl Sagan. . .only the confirmed information isn't sent via radio-waves, but rather through written information in the genome. Make sense? The delivery system doesn't matter and neither does the "ID" of the sender. All we have is a message.

I am also stating that from a purely scientific standpoint, while the information theory that fuels ID and irreducible complexity make an immovabile thesis (an equal contender to gradual Darwinism), the evidence stops dead at the designed object. . .not the identity of the designer.

I hope I'm clear about that. The community of consensus science simply hasn't discovered how they can capitalize on this.

Steve: "Where did I “pre-break” it? How did I change it? Besides his own conclusions based on the quoted premise, I challenge you to produce something I omitted that was relevant and undermines my point."

You previously stated, "Watch what happens if I change a few keys words of Sproul’s comment. . ."

Thus it couldn't be dealt with "as-is." You had to alter the key terms, and then position it opposite Sproul as if it were a valid argument against him. But it's not. Because you changed the very terms that are being argued to suit you only.

Chance and design have two completely different meanings. If we are to communicate honestly with each other, and if you really want people to trust your message, then you need to be consistent with the terms that are in conflict.

For example, in your OP, chance is first defined, not in a literal sense as an agent, but rather a description of a "self-driven process that appears random except from a teleological point of view."

#1. If chance only appears random, then what is chance in essence? The ball is in your court to provide the correct nature of chance. You cannot simply stop at "appears random" without clarifying what it is behind the illusion you claim is there.

Steve: "He is falsely construing the phrase “by chance” as an instrumental of means rather than as an instrumental of manner."

#2. Then you state chance is not means, but rather "an instrumental of manner." Grammatical errors aside, the onus is upon you to explain this. "Manner" is necessarily indicative of an entity. But you don't want chance to be an entity, or else it will fall into Sproul's advantage. If chance is not an entity, or an instrument of means, then what it chance?

#3. Then finally, in a rather surprising switch, you state that chance is a manner and a means. At the same time in the same place? Still very vague. Further, I would suspect it is evasively so on your part as well. I think you want to keep the terms ambiguous in order to hedge your bets.

Steve: "You get really hung up about my identification of the Designer as God.'

Close, but rather I'm hung up on everyone's assumptions here. It's not just you.

Pay attention to the fact that Sproul is part of an obscure Calvinist Christian movement that is far from mainstream evangelicalism. He was part of a handful of theologians to protest ECT.

At the same time, consider that Stein is a member of Judaism the last time I checked. Not sure off the top of my head if he's orthodox or moderate though.

My point? These are representatives of two different Gods. One is strictly Jewish, while the other is non-mainstream (monergistic) trinitarian.

Now, just to add to the pile. . .I'm willing to gamble that you yourself may have had a third and wholly unique assumption about God based on your personal theology. What about a Mormon reading this same blog?

The point is that the identity of the "Designer" of Intelligent Design theory is not supported by the science of it, while the indication of an unspecified supernatural designer remains. The two can remain wholly separate.

Information theory and the design of any created object can exist while the author remains hidden. Yet the object of design isn't invalidated just because there isn't a name-tag attached.

Steve: "Well, how the heck could I avoid it, given that that’s who Sproul thinks the Designer was?"

We can only assume that. We cannot assume your idea of G-d is the exact same as Sproul's. This modern world has become both syncretistic and hypersectarian. So you simply cannot lump all theists into the same basket.

Steve: "The excitement over “Expelled” is coming from people who see it as a boon to theism. Focus on the Family, Ligonier Ministries, American Vision - these Christian groups are about to swoon over a movie that champions the God-of-the-gaps argument known as Intelligent Design."

Ah! The argument to motive finally comes out. But let's consider it closely anyway.

First, with the ministries you're citing, I think that if any of these groups assume that ID is support for some sort of a back-door gospel, or "proto-gospel," or a foot in the door for "getting God back into the classroom" are setting themselves up for real disappointment here.

The "Focus on the Family" gospel is not necessarily the gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather more of a moral reform movement run by church-enthusiasts. Or as I prefer to call it: "Wood, hay, and stubble."

Ligonier is an actual Bible teaching ministry of Sproul's. It's the equivalent of St. Paul's reasoning in the marketplace with the dominant philosophies of his age.

The point is that if the motives are considered, then where they sit on the priority lists of the individuals involved should be considered as well.

I admit to a great personal bias in favor of Sproul, and assert that he knows where his priorities are, unlike say, James Dobson. I'm convinced that these issues are peripheral to Sproul's true calling. I also think that what he wants (as well as Stein for that matter), is just to keep the discussion going. Nothing more. Each man can only move the ball so far down the field.

Based on what I've heard from reviews, I think the movie will reflect this as well. This is only the beginning and I think both of these men are aware of it.

-PJ

Of course, when observing chance as a manner rather than a means, it doesn’t follow. It becomes a “just so” statement unto itself.

Chance is a manner and a means, but not an agent. He's obviously leading to the common anti-evolutionist argument that "Evolution is a faith, too. Evolution is the god of evolutionists." It's a preposterous claim: would you be comfortable saying that gravity is God because gravity causes apples to fall? Yet Sproul and Demar make this sort of argument. Chance is a description of the process, not an agent. Even I, who have no problem with evolutionary theory, view the agent as God, not chance.

But to suggest even that, and ID opponents hastily go for their guns to fight. . .what? A Judeo-Christian deity. Which is a poker tell if ever I saw one. Just because it’s popular with western religion doesn’t limit ID to straight-up creationism.

Of course not. Creationists customarily deny evolution that is capable of producing new genera. But the founders of ID don't deny evolution. They just seem to think God was either incapable of producing the present diversity of life using His Own laws, or they think He cunningly left some fingerprints so people would believe in Him (a la natural theology).

If this is a falsehood as you say, then where is your correction? This statement removes the basic building blocks of evolutionary theory itself. You cannot use that defense without weakening your own thesis. Evolution depends on time and random mutation. Sure, you can easliy defend that assertion with natural selection. But see below. What is not random about that? What are all the factors that actually come into play? They are unknowns and left to chance.

Are you reading my post? My correction is clear: no being named "evolution" or "chance" exist, much less created anything. When scientists say that "chance" caused something, they are merely affirming that nothing innately teleological was going on. Animals didn't develop sight so they could survive better (teleological); those that developed photosensitive cells randomly survived better (chance).

Furthermore, why the automatic assumption that this is all the fault of a bunch of Christians? You’re jumping to conclusions. If this is some kind of “hidden gospel,” they are far from achieving that. As a matter of fact, all ID can do really is promote more syncretistic paganism. So the a priori assumption of the Christian conspiracy doesn’t work.

Huh? Don't be coy: the creators and chief advocates of ID (Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, Behe, Wells) are all Christians, and the overwhelming majority of ID advocates are, by definition, theists - or Designerists, if you want to keep up the illusion. Is there a hidden gospel? No, but even you admit that there are plenty of churches and individual Christians using ID argument to try knocking the "a" of "atheists", which is a necessary first step. Besides all this, I never made the argument that ID is wrong even partly because Christians are the ones advocating it.

When this above statement is read from the mutual conclusion that it is indeed still as yet “unknown,” then all we have left is the scientist switching labels on a single thing and Sproul calling their bluff.

Scientists label the unknown as unknown: ID proponents are the ones switching the label from unknown to unknowable. As for the "mutual conclusion," this discussion is not meant to concede that there are near as many "unknowns" as ID advocates claim: most, if not all, irreducible complexity arguments have been defeated numerous times because we can explain how things happened without being designed.

As above, how does this not apply to the scientist?

Well, scientists do not stop seeking evidence to fill the gaps in knowledge and are not content to let the unknowns be unknowns. To say that something appears designed is a concession of ignorance of the non-teleological explanation; scientists are not ones for throwing up their hands and conceding ignorance.

1. You’re stating that anything designed must absolutely and immediately identify the designer. “Design” gets us nowhere even close to personal encounters with the actual maker. The limits of ID are only that of the inherent makeup of the created object alone and nothing else.

I'm stating nothing of the sort. But are you actually suggesting the intelligent design does not posit an intelligent designer? And just what sort of a designer do you expect us to think you're talking about? Ideas have consequences.

2. You necessarily had to change the very words of Sproul’s comment around and force your presuppositions into the formula to make it work in your favor. You could not find the fallacy in the statement as stated without stepping in beforehand and “pre-breaking” it.

Where did I "pre-break" it? How did I change it? Besides his own conclusions based on the quoted premise, I challenge you to produce something I omitted that was relevant and undermines my point.

You get really hung up about my identification of the Designer as God. Well, how the heck could I avoid it, given that that's who Sproul thinks the Designer was? The excitement over "Expelled" is coming from people who see it as a boon to theism. Focus on the Family, Ligonier Ministries, American Vision - these Christian groups are about to swoon over a movie that champions the God-of-the-gaps argument known as Intelligent Design.

I watched the same interview and then came across this blog. The questions that form in my mind is how you got to your conclusions to begin with.

I've read a lot of Sproul and I can assure you he is completely unaware that "chance" is actually a "manner" as you put it, rather than a means. As am I. I honestly don't see the connection.

Of course, when observing chance as a manner rather than a means, it doesn't follow. It becomes a "just so" statement unto itself.

As a theist, I agree that science cannot say “who” or “what” caused or didn’t cause anything. This is where many, if not all opponents of ID seem to get stuck. Maybe it's the terminology itself that throws people.

ID is not an "ID card" for any particular being, nor should it be even associated with identification. Its limits are that it can only show design. There is no signature on the oil painting, but you can clearly tell there was some artist at work on it.

But to suggest even that, and ID opponents hastily go for their guns to fight. . .what? A Judeo-Christian deity. Which is a poker tell if ever I saw one. Just because it's popular with western religion doesn't limit ID to straight-up creationism.

You state: "The implication that anyone believes actual entities named “chance” or “evolution” created anything is a misrepresentation - a falsehood - and Christians will not make any inroads with these people if they continue to use bad arguments like this."

If this is a falsehood as you say, then where is your correction? This statement removes the basic building blocks of evolutionary theory itself. You cannot use that defense without weakening your own thesis. Evolution depends on time and random mutation. Sure, you can easliy defend that assertion with natural selection. But see below. What is not random about that? What are all the factors that actually come into play? They are unknowns and left to chance.

Furthermore, why the automatic assumption that this is all the fault of a bunch of Christians? You're jumping to conclusions. If this is some kind of "hidden gospel," they are far from achieving that. As a matter of fact, all ID can do really is promote more syncretistic paganism. So the a priori assumption of the Christian conspiracy doesn't work.

Christians shouldn't even be using ID to promote the gospel, since they are in just as much danger of making assumptions about the identity of the designer as agnostics and atheists do.

You state: Surely Sproul is aware of the actual intent of such a statement. When a scientist says “chance”, he is acknowledging that some necessary contingent of the myriad of factors that caused the actual outcome and averted an infinite number of other outcomes remains, to date, unknown.

This statement really gets to the heart of the matter and the total essence of what divides both camps.

What if the intent "awareness" you spoke of is rather a fallacy of intent on your part? What if Sproul is just as aware of the unknown factors as the scientist?

When this above statement is read from the mutual conclusion that it is indeed still as yet "unknown," then all we have left is the scientist switching labels on a single thing and Sproul calling their bluff. I know the simplistic nature of the explanation is itself abhorrent, but it is no less true.

Because if it is still unknown as you state, then simply calling it "chance" is misleading. This is what Sproul is getting at. His only intent is in calling a spade a spade. "Not a chance" as he would say simply means "not chance."

You state: Hume’s derisive comment on chance was a criticism of those who stop seeking evidence to fill the gaps in knowledge and are content to let the unknowns remain unknown.

As above, how does this not apply to the scientist?

This is exactly what ID advocates do! Watch what happens if I change a few keys words of Sproul’s comment: “The word ‘design’ is used as a magic word for ignorance. When you don’t know what causes something, you say, ‘Well, it happened by intelligent design.’ That doesn’t explain anything.” Now whose position looks more eligible for Hume’s critique?

That would apply quite well if it weren't for two fundamental errors on your part.

1. You're stating that anything designed must absolutely and immediately identify the designer. "Design" gets us nowhere even close to personal encounters with the actual maker. The limits of ID are only that of the inherent makeup of the created object alone and nothing else.

2. You necessarily had to change the very words of Sproul's comment around and force your presuppositions into the formula to make it work in your favor. You could not find the fallacy in the statement as stated without stepping in beforehand and "pre-breaking" it.

You state: "Arguing that something was “designed” every time there is no obvious answer to how it happened relegates God’s activity only to the currently unexplained."

Correct. But this also removes God's very identity from the discussion.

Yet the design can and still does remain when scientifically tested. ID depends on irreducible complexity, which doesn't assume or identify God either.

ID opponents depend on a theistic assumption that's only there in name only. Its just sitting there along for the ride; pretty much doing nothing other than making atheists panic.

Therefore, ID opponents are merely making a "guilt by association" accusation. Sure you can argue motive all day long, but that doesn't affect the science, and you yourself are in danger of making an argument to motive fallacy when the designer in question is never identified.

-PJ