Please feel free to use this poster, or comment on it, or suggest revisions.
Thank you!
Musings on science, the Bible, and fantastic literature (and sometimes basketball and other stuff).
God speaks to us through the Bible and the findings of science, and we should listen to both types of revelation.
The title is from Psalm 84:11.
The Wikipedia is usually a pretty good reference. I mostly use the World English Bible (WEB), because it is public domain. I am grateful.
License
I have written an e-book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, which is free to anyone. To download that book, in several formats, go here.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
Showing posts with label randomness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label randomness. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 09, 2023
Monday, June 18, 2018
God uses seemingly random events
Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from Yahweh.
(World English Bible, public domain)
but its every decision is from Yahweh.
(World English Bible, public domain)
Friday, October 23, 2015
"We don't have a single example of a mutation resulting in a net gain of information. Not one" (But we do)
The title of this post quotes Eric Metaxas, and is part of a post, by him, on BreakPoint: "We don't have a single example of a mutation resulting in a net gain of information. Not one."
I appreciate Mr. Metaxas. I have read a couple of excellent books by him, and have previously posted about his writing, here and here. However, Mr. Metaxas, who has many gifts, and has done a great deal of good, is not an expert in genetics. He seems to be repeating a statement that he has heard from the Discovery Institute, an organization which argues that mutations did not bring about new functions in organisms. Please note that it is always possible to argue that any difference, however small, between two organisms is the result of God's specific miraculous intervention, and this cannot be experimentally disproved. (It has not been proved, either, and probably couldn't be, even if true.) But it can be doubted, and alternative mechanisms for the rise of new genetic information have been found.The Discovery Institute promotes the idea that God has, indeed, caused all changes in the DNA of two related species, because random changes cannot produce new functions. However, most scientists, Christian and otherwise, believe that most, or all, of such differences have come about through random mutation, followed by selection. Many Christian scientists believe that God has allowed random mutation and selection to exist, as a means of bringing about the diversity of organisms present on earth.
I'm not completely clear as to what Mr. Metaxas means by information. That is a complex subject, and different experts define it in different ways. But it seems clear that he is claiming that living things have never added a function as a result of a mutation. Sorry, but we do have such examples.
The first comment on Mr. Metaxas's post proposes that frameshift mutations have been a common means for the arrival of new functions, and provides a URL, which leads to this article, which is quite technical. The article claims that searching the genome of mice and humans has led to the discovery of several hundred genes that must have arisen by this type of mutation. The first two sentences of this article (after the abstract) are as follows:
"Several mechanisms, such as exon shuffling and alternative splicing, are responsible for novel gene functions, but they generate homologous domains and do not usually lead to drastic innovation. Major novelties can potentially be introduced by frameshift mutations and this idea can explain the creation of novel proteins."
The authors, then, believe that there are "several" mechanisms for the origin of novel gene functioning, including frameshift mutations.
The matter of the rise of new information has been discussed, in six posts in the BioLogos forum, by Dennis Venema. I briefly summarize these posts:
In the first, Venema discusses the position of the Discovery Institute, and the Intelligent Design Movement, and is related to the second paragraph of this post.
He says: "... describing how specified information can arise through natural means does not in any way imply God’s absence from the process. After all, natural processes are equally a manifestation of God’s activity as what one would call supernatural events."
In the second post, Venema describes the Long-Term Evolution Experiment. During this experiment, a colony of sexually reproducing bacteria experienced a mutation which allowed them to use citrate as an energy source, when, prior to that mutation, or series of mutations, they had not been able to do so.
In the third post, Venema discusses evidence that genes for hormone receptor proteins developed, in vertebrates, from duplication, and subsequent alteration, of an ancestral gene.
The fourth post argues, with evidence, that even the DNA responsible for complexly folded proteins may change so that a new function comes about, and that this has happened many times.
In his fifth post, Venema summarizes evidence that the entire vertebrate genome was duplicated, in an ancestor in the distant past, and that some of the "extra" copies of the genes thus formed have gone on to be responsible for new functions in vertebrates:
"This evidence is a strong indication that the modern vertebrate genome went through two rounds of [Whole Genome Duplication] early in its evolution, and that these events provided substantial 'raw material' for the acquisition of new information through gene divergence and neofunctionalization."
In his sixth, and last, post, Venema discusses the differences between the genes of humans and our closest relatives, the chimpanzees.
Thanks for reading. Mr. Venema, nor I, doubt that God is able to create, and change His creations, by any way He sees fit, including the miraculous. However we, and many other Christian scientists, believe that God designed the world so that random mutations, of various types, and natural selection, have given rise to much of the variety that is found in God's good creation. The assertion by Mr. Metaxas that forms the title of this post does not stand up the the evidence.
Added April 8, 2016: A later post on this blog refers to two other examples of recently arising functional genes.
I appreciate Mr. Metaxas. I have read a couple of excellent books by him, and have previously posted about his writing, here and here. However, Mr. Metaxas, who has many gifts, and has done a great deal of good, is not an expert in genetics. He seems to be repeating a statement that he has heard from the Discovery Institute, an organization which argues that mutations did not bring about new functions in organisms. Please note that it is always possible to argue that any difference, however small, between two organisms is the result of God's specific miraculous intervention, and this cannot be experimentally disproved. (It has not been proved, either, and probably couldn't be, even if true.) But it can be doubted, and alternative mechanisms for the rise of new genetic information have been found.The Discovery Institute promotes the idea that God has, indeed, caused all changes in the DNA of two related species, because random changes cannot produce new functions. However, most scientists, Christian and otherwise, believe that most, or all, of such differences have come about through random mutation, followed by selection. Many Christian scientists believe that God has allowed random mutation and selection to exist, as a means of bringing about the diversity of organisms present on earth.
I'm not completely clear as to what Mr. Metaxas means by information. That is a complex subject, and different experts define it in different ways. But it seems clear that he is claiming that living things have never added a function as a result of a mutation. Sorry, but we do have such examples.
The first comment on Mr. Metaxas's post proposes that frameshift mutations have been a common means for the arrival of new functions, and provides a URL, which leads to this article, which is quite technical. The article claims that searching the genome of mice and humans has led to the discovery of several hundred genes that must have arisen by this type of mutation. The first two sentences of this article (after the abstract) are as follows:
"Several mechanisms, such as exon shuffling and alternative splicing, are responsible for novel gene functions, but they generate homologous domains and do not usually lead to drastic innovation. Major novelties can potentially be introduced by frameshift mutations and this idea can explain the creation of novel proteins."
The authors, then, believe that there are "several" mechanisms for the origin of novel gene functioning, including frameshift mutations.
The matter of the rise of new information has been discussed, in six posts in the BioLogos forum, by Dennis Venema. I briefly summarize these posts:
In the first, Venema discusses the position of the Discovery Institute, and the Intelligent Design Movement, and is related to the second paragraph of this post.
He says: "... describing how specified information can arise through natural means does not in any way imply God’s absence from the process. After all, natural processes are equally a manifestation of God’s activity as what one would call supernatural events."
In the second post, Venema describes the Long-Term Evolution Experiment. During this experiment, a colony of sexually reproducing bacteria experienced a mutation which allowed them to use citrate as an energy source, when, prior to that mutation, or series of mutations, they had not been able to do so.
In the third post, Venema discusses evidence that genes for hormone receptor proteins developed, in vertebrates, from duplication, and subsequent alteration, of an ancestral gene.
The fourth post argues, with evidence, that even the DNA responsible for complexly folded proteins may change so that a new function comes about, and that this has happened many times.
In his fifth post, Venema summarizes evidence that the entire vertebrate genome was duplicated, in an ancestor in the distant past, and that some of the "extra" copies of the genes thus formed have gone on to be responsible for new functions in vertebrates:
"This evidence is a strong indication that the modern vertebrate genome went through two rounds of [Whole Genome Duplication] early in its evolution, and that these events provided substantial 'raw material' for the acquisition of new information through gene divergence and neofunctionalization."
In his sixth, and last, post, Venema discusses the differences between the genes of humans and our closest relatives, the chimpanzees.
Thanks for reading. Mr. Venema, nor I, doubt that God is able to create, and change His creations, by any way He sees fit, including the miraculous. However we, and many other Christian scientists, believe that God designed the world so that random mutations, of various types, and natural selection, have given rise to much of the variety that is found in God's good creation. The assertion by Mr. Metaxas that forms the title of this post does not stand up the the evidence.
Added April 8, 2016: A later post on this blog refers to two other examples of recently arising functional genes.
describing how specified information can arise through natural means
does not in any way imply God’s absence from the process. After all,
natural processes are equally a manifestation of God’s activity as what
one would call supernatural events. - See more at:
https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design#sthash.baHk5Eyt.dpuf
describing how specified information can arise through natural means
does not in any way imply God’s absence from the process. After all,
natural processes are equally a manifestation of God’s activity as what
one would call supernatural events. - See more at:
https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design#sthash.baHk5Eyt.dpuf
Monday, April 14, 2014
Some blog posts on chance versus God's omnipotence
Are there things that an omnipotent God leaves to chance? Or is every change in every particle in the universe ordered and directed by God? Clearly, the answer has to be that we do not know, but it's an interesting question. Here are some blog posts by other people on this subject:
Henry Neufeld believes that perhaps God used pure chance to get to where the universe is now, and he includes humans, and their intelligence. He isn't even sure that God directed things at the sub-atomic level. Interesting. I'll have to think about that one.
Here's one from a Christian involved in forecasting the weather, who says that it makes sense to pray for particular kinds of weather (and other things) in spite of God's omnipotence. Weather, of course, is notoriously unpredictable.
Thanks for reading. For more on what I think about these matters, click on the "randomness" or "chance" in the tags at the end of this post. Let's put it this way -- I haven't solved the problem.
Henry Neufeld believes that perhaps God used pure chance to get to where the universe is now, and he includes humans, and their intelligence. He isn't even sure that God directed things at the sub-atomic level. Interesting. I'll have to think about that one.
Here's one from a Christian involved in forecasting the weather, who says that it makes sense to pray for particular kinds of weather (and other things) in spite of God's omnipotence. Weather, of course, is notoriously unpredictable.
Thanks for reading. For more on what I think about these matters, click on the "randomness" or "chance" in the tags at the end of this post. Let's put it this way -- I haven't solved the problem.
Monday, November 19, 2012
I'm thankful for ignorance.
I'm thankful for ignorance -- mine, not yours -- because it's fun learning
new things, or re-learning things I've forgotten, and I think that doing so is
part of the image of God in humans. Babies are learning stuff all the
time, so it's normal to want to learn things. We sometimes wonder, "What good is it to accumulate knowledge?" But there is potential good in learning.
I'm also thankful for God's ignorance. He forgets forgiven sin!
It is possible that God has set limits on knowing, in the universe that He has created, such that even He, abiding by those limits, does not know everything. I am referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I don't, if you will excuse the expression, know whether God is able to supersede the limits to human knowledge set by that principle. I also refer to the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Gödel, which say, more or less, that any mathematical system will be based, in part, on ideas, axioms, or statements that can't be proved -- in other words, there will always be doubt as to the rigor and consistency of mathematics. Again, I think it possible that God knows whether any axiom or statement is true or not, but it is also possible that God is Self-limited in this area, too.
It is also possible that God allows real randomness in the universe.
Thanks for reading! I learn things, or re-learn things, in the process of blogging.
I'm also thankful for God's ignorance. He forgets forgiven sin!
It is possible that God has set limits on knowing, in the universe that He has created, such that even He, abiding by those limits, does not know everything. I am referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I don't, if you will excuse the expression, know whether God is able to supersede the limits to human knowledge set by that principle. I also refer to the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Gödel, which say, more or less, that any mathematical system will be based, in part, on ideas, axioms, or statements that can't be proved -- in other words, there will always be doubt as to the rigor and consistency of mathematics. Again, I think it possible that God knows whether any axiom or statement is true or not, but it is also possible that God is Self-limited in this area, too.
It is also possible that God allows real randomness in the universe.
Thanks for reading! I learn things, or re-learn things, in the process of blogging.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Isn't God a great artist?
I don't think it's original with me, but I sometimes place, in the description of a photo I post, such as those on Flickr, the question, "Isn't God a great artist?" (This is, I believe, the latest of these.)
God as artist
What do I mean by that? What should I mean? I wish to muse about these questions. First, some scripture:
Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for man there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21 Yahweh God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. As the man slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Yahweh God made a woman from the rib which had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of Man.” (all Bible quotations from World English Bible, public domain)
Isaiah 64:8 But now, Yahweh, you are our Father.
God as artist
What do I mean by that? What should I mean? I wish to muse about these questions. First, some scripture:
Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for man there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21 Yahweh God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. As the man slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Yahweh God made a woman from the rib which had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of Man.” (all Bible quotations from World English Bible, public domain)
Isaiah 64:8 But now, Yahweh, you are our Father.
We are the clay, and you our potter.
We all are the work of your hand.
Leaving aside questions about how literally we are supposed to take these passages, the language indicates clearly that God can be described as an Artist, a Craftsman who takes existing ordinary material and does something wonderful with it.
Is God an artist? Of course. Orthodox Christian belief includes this:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth,of all that is, seen and unseen. (Taken from a version of the Nicene Creed, 1975)
If God is Almighty, He clearly can be an Artist. If He is "maker of heaven and earth," then that required Him to be an artist, in the sense that He took, not "existing ordinary material," but nothing, and made a lot of something, wonderful something, from it. See the graphic at the top of this page for more about this question. Not only did God make things, but He sustains the universe -- see Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:3 for part of the evidence for that.
Christians also usually believe that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient. Such a powerful Creator should, then, be able to design every leaf on every tree on earth, and every water ripple and dewdrop on earth, and every human face, individually, and to the finest detail. I suppose that human faces are altered by human activity, such as disease, emotions, bad nutrition, exposure to the sun, accidents, and, of course, makeup. But I believe that God could have designed each face, exercising complete control over its appearance. I'm not sure that God did, for reasons I hope to explain below. There are those who believe that not only could God have designed each face, but that He did, and that He is also in control of how each face changes as it matures and is exposed to the environment, including emotions and human activity.
Free will and randomness
We come, thus, to the question of free will, at least for humans. I'm not suggesting that leaves, water ripples and dewdrops have a will at all, free or not. But humans do, and I'm certainly not alone in believing so. If they do, part of what a human face looks like is because of choices that human has made, or that others have made affecting that person.
How about leaves and ripples? Although God created the universe, and sustains it now, it is possible that God's artistry is not so much expressed in His work in each leaf, ripple, or face, but in the creation of the laws that determine how things develop. For example, God could have created the universe in such a way that the Big Bang produced the elements with small nuclei, and in such a way that supernovae produce the elements with heavier nuclei. He could also have created the universe in such a way that Carbon atoms bind rather easily with Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur and Phosphorus so as to assemble the complex organic molecules that make life possible. Creation of a universe with laws and properties resulting in the way things are now would have been as great, or even greater, artistry than assembling each leaf, atom by atom.
God could also have built some randomness (or maybe a lot of it) into the universe. I have posted previously on this idea, asking "Is there such a thing as chance?" and on "God and Chance," here and yet again, and also on the idea of randomness at the subatomic level. Henry Neufeld, theologian, has also written about this subject. C. S. Lewis, on the other hand, had one of his best characters, Puddleglum, in The Silver Chair, say that "there are no accidents."
The fact is that we have no way of determining whether God controls all events in the universe, or whether he lets some of them be determined by the properties He has built in to the universe, or by those properties, plus chance. So God could have specially designed each and every leaf, and its changing fall colors, or God could have built laws and principles and properties into the universe which lead to the changing fall colors of each leaf, or God could also let random events, at the subatomic level, or higher, determine the appearance of such a leaf, over time. But, in all of these cases, God either controls or allows. If random processes produce a beautiful leaf, God be praised! If intricate control does, God be praised! God is a great artist.
An illustration of what Puddleglum said: While thinking about this subject, and preparing to write about it, I came upon a discussion of the artistry of Linnéa Spransy, who, she says, attempts to express "the tension between freedom and constraint" in her paintings. Spransy is a Christian. The post says this:
Like many working scientists, she is seeking a way of understanding how the creator engages with His creation, and a better grasp on how we creatures should make our way in response. On one hand, her attentiveness to the basic orderliness of the material creation has a corollary in the familiar disciplines of faith, including reading the scriptures, prayer, and responding with mercy to ruptures in human lives and communities. But on the other hand, her embrace of surprise and chaos is, as she says, an “invitation to the otherness of God,”. . .
You may wish to see my recent post on the use of the words, beauty and beautiful, in the Bible.
Thanks for reading, whether by chance or design.
Leaving aside questions about how literally we are supposed to take these passages, the language indicates clearly that God can be described as an Artist, a Craftsman who takes existing ordinary material and does something wonderful with it.
Is God an artist? Of course. Orthodox Christian belief includes this:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth,of all that is, seen and unseen. (Taken from a version of the Nicene Creed, 1975)
If God is Almighty, He clearly can be an Artist. If He is "maker of heaven and earth," then that required Him to be an artist, in the sense that He took, not "existing ordinary material," but nothing, and made a lot of something, wonderful something, from it. See the graphic at the top of this page for more about this question. Not only did God make things, but He sustains the universe -- see Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:3 for part of the evidence for that.
Christians also usually believe that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient. Such a powerful Creator should, then, be able to design every leaf on every tree on earth, and every water ripple and dewdrop on earth, and every human face, individually, and to the finest detail. I suppose that human faces are altered by human activity, such as disease, emotions, bad nutrition, exposure to the sun, accidents, and, of course, makeup. But I believe that God could have designed each face, exercising complete control over its appearance. I'm not sure that God did, for reasons I hope to explain below. There are those who believe that not only could God have designed each face, but that He did, and that He is also in control of how each face changes as it matures and is exposed to the environment, including emotions and human activity.
Free will and randomness
We come, thus, to the question of free will, at least for humans. I'm not suggesting that leaves, water ripples and dewdrops have a will at all, free or not. But humans do, and I'm certainly not alone in believing so. If they do, part of what a human face looks like is because of choices that human has made, or that others have made affecting that person.
How about leaves and ripples? Although God created the universe, and sustains it now, it is possible that God's artistry is not so much expressed in His work in each leaf, ripple, or face, but in the creation of the laws that determine how things develop. For example, God could have created the universe in such a way that the Big Bang produced the elements with small nuclei, and in such a way that supernovae produce the elements with heavier nuclei. He could also have created the universe in such a way that Carbon atoms bind rather easily with Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur and Phosphorus so as to assemble the complex organic molecules that make life possible. Creation of a universe with laws and properties resulting in the way things are now would have been as great, or even greater, artistry than assembling each leaf, atom by atom.
God could also have built some randomness (or maybe a lot of it) into the universe. I have posted previously on this idea, asking "Is there such a thing as chance?" and on "God and Chance," here and yet again, and also on the idea of randomness at the subatomic level. Henry Neufeld, theologian, has also written about this subject. C. S. Lewis, on the other hand, had one of his best characters, Puddleglum, in The Silver Chair, say that "there are no accidents."
The fact is that we have no way of determining whether God controls all events in the universe, or whether he lets some of them be determined by the properties He has built in to the universe, or by those properties, plus chance. So God could have specially designed each and every leaf, and its changing fall colors, or God could have built laws and principles and properties into the universe which lead to the changing fall colors of each leaf, or God could also let random events, at the subatomic level, or higher, determine the appearance of such a leaf, over time. But, in all of these cases, God either controls or allows. If random processes produce a beautiful leaf, God be praised! If intricate control does, God be praised! God is a great artist.
An illustration of what Puddleglum said: While thinking about this subject, and preparing to write about it, I came upon a discussion of the artistry of Linnéa Spransy, who, she says, attempts to express "the tension between freedom and constraint" in her paintings. Spransy is a Christian. The post says this:
Like many working scientists, she is seeking a way of understanding how the creator engages with His creation, and a better grasp on how we creatures should make our way in response. On one hand, her attentiveness to the basic orderliness of the material creation has a corollary in the familiar disciplines of faith, including reading the scriptures, prayer, and responding with mercy to ruptures in human lives and communities. But on the other hand, her embrace of surprise and chaos is, as she says, an “invitation to the otherness of God,”. . .
You may wish to see my recent post on the use of the words, beauty and beautiful, in the Bible.
Thanks for reading, whether by chance or design.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Chance, yet again, in the Bible
Proverbs 18:18 The lot puts an end to quarrels and decides between powerful contenders. (ESV)
As often in Proverbs, this statement doesn't seem to related to the context, but to stand alone. It simply states a truth. Does this advocate using some sort of random drawing, rather than our expensive court system? Maybe, maybe not. But the statement doesn't seem to condemn the use of chance, whether it can be applied more broadly, or not.
I saw this in the July on-line Bible readings from the English Standard Version.
I've posted several times on "chance," and if you want to see other posts, click on the "chance," or "randomness" in the tags at the end of this post.
Thanks for reading. I'm glad you chanced by.
As often in Proverbs, this statement doesn't seem to related to the context, but to stand alone. It simply states a truth. Does this advocate using some sort of random drawing, rather than our expensive court system? Maybe, maybe not. But the statement doesn't seem to condemn the use of chance, whether it can be applied more broadly, or not.
I saw this in the July on-line Bible readings from the English Standard Version.
I've posted several times on "chance," and if you want to see other posts, click on the "chance," or "randomness" in the tags at the end of this post.
Thanks for reading. I'm glad you chanced by.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
God and chance, continued
I'm supposed to be on hiatus, but this is too good not to pass on.
Quintessence of Dust has added to his comments on chance vs. the Intelligent Design movement. (Some IDers have claimed that God cannot work through "chance" events. Nonsense!)
He also refers to a note in First Things, by Stephen Barr, which considers what Thomas Aquinas thought about chance.
Both Barr and Quintessence of Dust quote Proverbs 16:33, which says, "The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord." (ESV)
I have previously written, here, about the one occurrence (or two, depending on how you count) of the word "random" in some versions of the Bible, and here, about chance.
Quintessence of Dust gives examples of chance processes in science, commonly understood that way, here.
Thanks for chancing by this blog, and reading.
Quintessence of Dust has added to his comments on chance vs. the Intelligent Design movement. (Some IDers have claimed that God cannot work through "chance" events. Nonsense!)
He also refers to a note in First Things, by Stephen Barr, which considers what Thomas Aquinas thought about chance.
Both Barr and Quintessence of Dust quote Proverbs 16:33, which says, "The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord." (ESV)
I have previously written, here, about the one occurrence (or two, depending on how you count) of the word "random" in some versions of the Bible, and here, about chance.
Quintessence of Dust gives examples of chance processes in science, commonly understood that way, here.
Thanks for chancing by this blog, and reading.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
God and chance
I wasn't supposed to be posting, but found something too good to pass up on, and that should be passed on.
Uncommon Descent (which I haven't been reading) is an Intelligent Design blog, and someone posting there apparently said that anyone who argues that God may have used evolutionary processes in making living things to be the way they are is a "spineless appeaser." Stephen Matheson posted a response, which includes the following:
2. I'm astonished by the casual claim that "Darwinian evolution" is "out of God's control" because of the role of "chance." Leaving aside some pretty clear statements about chance and God's providence in Scripture, I find the statement to be either a tautology ("Darwinian evolution is out of God's control because Darwin/Dawkins said it was") or a pronouncement regarding God's sovereignty that is anathema to me as a Christian (and especially as a Reformed Christian). In grumpier moods, or after reading some of the more obnoxious comments on this blog, I would suggest that such talk approaches blasphemy, but in any case I would not count myself among Christians who talk that way about God's world and his work. It's one thing to say you don't buy the Darwinian explanation, or to say that you're confused about the working of God's purposes in the midst of seemingly random events; it's another to declare that there are processes that God can't "control."
Indeed!
Thanks for reading.
Uncommon Descent (which I haven't been reading) is an Intelligent Design blog, and someone posting there apparently said that anyone who argues that God may have used evolutionary processes in making living things to be the way they are is a "spineless appeaser." Stephen Matheson posted a response, which includes the following:
2. I'm astonished by the casual claim that "Darwinian evolution" is "out of God's control" because of the role of "chance." Leaving aside some pretty clear statements about chance and God's providence in Scripture, I find the statement to be either a tautology ("Darwinian evolution is out of God's control because Darwin/Dawkins said it was") or a pronouncement regarding God's sovereignty that is anathema to me as a Christian (and especially as a Reformed Christian). In grumpier moods, or after reading some of the more obnoxious comments on this blog, I would suggest that such talk approaches blasphemy, but in any case I would not count myself among Christians who talk that way about God's world and his work. It's one thing to say you don't buy the Darwinian explanation, or to say that you're confused about the working of God's purposes in the midst of seemingly random events; it's another to declare that there are processes that God can't "control."
Indeed!
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Random Designer
I just finished a book by Richard G. Colling, namely Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator. (Bourbonnais, IL: Browning Press, 2004). Colling's thesis is that God uses the randomness in nature to accomplish His purposes.
Randomness, and seeming failure, writes Colling, doesn't bother the Creator:
But to the Random Designer, real failure simply does not exist! A string of separate events that appears devastating from our limited perspective is not even a setback for Him. (p. 69)
Colling is clearly a believer, and a scientist. He is not happy with all believers:
For some religious people, it is simply far too tempting to automatically attribute anything that is not easily understood to a supernatural cause and to inappropriately interpret scripture as a literal scientific textbook. (p.123)
The book is well written, and accessible to an intelligent non-scientist. I was especially interested in what Colling had to say about the immune system, which, as he says, generates the tremendous variety of possible antibodies by random shuffling of a relatively small number of genes. At least in this phenomenon, God seems to use randomness to achieve his purposes.
Thanks for reading.
Randomness, and seeming failure, writes Colling, doesn't bother the Creator:
But to the Random Designer, real failure simply does not exist! A string of separate events that appears devastating from our limited perspective is not even a setback for Him. (p. 69)
Colling is clearly a believer, and a scientist. He is not happy with all believers:
For some religious people, it is simply far too tempting to automatically attribute anything that is not easily understood to a supernatural cause and to inappropriately interpret scripture as a literal scientific textbook. (p.123)
The book is well written, and accessible to an intelligent non-scientist. I was especially interested in what Colling had to say about the immune system, which, as he says, generates the tremendous variety of possible antibodies by random shuffling of a relatively small number of genes. At least in this phenomenon, God seems to use randomness to achieve his purposes.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Choice and 20th Century physics, 1
I continue a series of musings on the question, "does anything at all really happen by chance?" This post is the third on that subject. The first two consider what the Bible has to say on the subject. (Here's the second, which has a link to the first, or, better, click on the "choice" label at the bottom of this post.)
Modern physics seems to say that almost everything that happens to sub-atomic particles is due to chance.
This belief is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (I have posted previously about Werner Heisenberg.) This principle states that it is impossible to determine both the position and speed* of sub-atomic particles precisely. Some positions are more likely than others, and, if you know what you are doing, you can produce a graphed curve describing the likelihood that the particle will have each possible position, but the exact position is uncertain. A similar statement could be made about the speed. As a result, electron positions cannot be known, but are described as wavefunctions, or orbitals. They are often shown as blobs or clouds in chemistry texts.
Does this mean that everything at the sub-atomic level is due to chance? As I see it, not necessarily. It means that nothing at the sub-atomic level can be predicted absolutely by physicists, except as a statement of the probability that certain things will happen, something like predicting that there will be a 30% chance of rain. Unlike (we suppose) weather prediction, which will get better and better as we learn more about what causes weather events, and are better at detecting these causes, prediction at the sub-atomic level has fundamental limits -- it isn't ever going to get any better, if the theory is correct. Just because something can't be predicted doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually random, however.
Einstein was notoriously uncomfortable with this idea. He is said to have quipped (probably in German, not English) "God does not play at dice." (do a Google search on this phrase -- in quotation marks -- if interested.)
Some have speculated that this sub-atomic (quantum) uncertainty is a physical basis for free will. That may be so, but there are at least a couple of problems with this idea. First, just because physicists can't predict something doesn't mean that God doesn't control it. (God must at least allow sub-atomic events, but I suppose it is possible that He really does let some or all of them happen at random. It is also possible that every sub-atomic event is directed and controlled by God.) Second, it is not clear that chance events on the sub-atomic level could be responsible for the brain activity that leads to choices. The sub-atomic, after all, is orders of magnitude smaller than a nerve cell. To have such events change the action of nerve cells, at least one of which would be expected to do something if an individual chooses, would be roughly as if random impacts from dust particles in the air changed the direction of a moving car.
I'll probably have more to say about this later.
Thanks for reading.
*It's really not the speed, or even the velocity, but the momentum, but I'm trying not to be too technical here.
Modern physics seems to say that almost everything that happens to sub-atomic particles is due to chance.
This belief is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (I have posted previously about Werner Heisenberg.) This principle states that it is impossible to determine both the position and speed* of sub-atomic particles precisely. Some positions are more likely than others, and, if you know what you are doing, you can produce a graphed curve describing the likelihood that the particle will have each possible position, but the exact position is uncertain. A similar statement could be made about the speed. As a result, electron positions cannot be known, but are described as wavefunctions, or orbitals. They are often shown as blobs or clouds in chemistry texts.
Does this mean that everything at the sub-atomic level is due to chance? As I see it, not necessarily. It means that nothing at the sub-atomic level can be predicted absolutely by physicists, except as a statement of the probability that certain things will happen, something like predicting that there will be a 30% chance of rain. Unlike (we suppose) weather prediction, which will get better and better as we learn more about what causes weather events, and are better at detecting these causes, prediction at the sub-atomic level has fundamental limits -- it isn't ever going to get any better, if the theory is correct. Just because something can't be predicted doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually random, however.
Einstein was notoriously uncomfortable with this idea. He is said to have quipped (probably in German, not English) "God does not play at dice." (do a Google search on this phrase -- in quotation marks -- if interested.)
Some have speculated that this sub-atomic (quantum) uncertainty is a physical basis for free will. That may be so, but there are at least a couple of problems with this idea. First, just because physicists can't predict something doesn't mean that God doesn't control it. (God must at least allow sub-atomic events, but I suppose it is possible that He really does let some or all of them happen at random. It is also possible that every sub-atomic event is directed and controlled by God.) Second, it is not clear that chance events on the sub-atomic level could be responsible for the brain activity that leads to choices. The sub-atomic, after all, is orders of magnitude smaller than a nerve cell. To have such events change the action of nerve cells, at least one of which would be expected to do something if an individual chooses, would be roughly as if random impacts from dust particles in the air changed the direction of a moving car.
I'll probably have more to say about this later.
Thanks for reading.
*It's really not the speed, or even the velocity, but the momentum, but I'm trying not to be too technical here.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Ahab's arrow
I recently began a series (don't know how long it will be -- I'll leave that up to chance) on whether anything really really really is due to chance, as opposed to directed by God. I'm not expecting to give a definitive answer to this question. Better minds than mine have failed to do this. Here's the first post. In it, I pointed out two uses of the word chance in the Bible.
There is only one occurrence of the word, random, in the Bible, or, rather, it occurs twice, in two places, as the same story is told in two of the historical books of the Old Testament. Here's one of them:
1 Kings 22:34 But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate. Therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, “Turn around and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded.” (ESV -- the wording of 2 Chronicles 18:33 is identical.) There is a note at random, which says that the original Hebrew literally says "drew his bow in his innocence." The NIV also uses random here, in both books, but without a text note.
The story is this. Micaiah, God's prophet, told wicked King Ahab that he would die in battle. Ahab disguised himself so that he wouldn't be recognized. The man mentioned in the verse shot Ahab. He was propped up in his chariot for some time, and the battle continued, but he died of the wound.
Did the bowman have a choice in this matter? Was what he did really random? At least two versions of the Bible use the word, random, here, as I have pointed out, which implies that there is at least a weak case that the bowman did, indeed, act on his own. Here are the possibilities, as I see them. (I'm excluding another possibility, namely that this event never happened.)
1) The bowman had no real choice in the matter. God directed him, presumably without the bowman being aware of it.
2) The bowman had a choice. God is outside of time, so knew in advance that the bowman would choose to fire, and would hit Ahab, but didn't make him do it.
3) The bowman had a choice, and God, if you please, just got lucky in predicting that Ahab would die. I don't seriously believe this one, but listed it for completeness.
Now, if 1) is true, random wouldn't seem to be the right word in scripture. I know, maybe it isn't the right word, but over and over again, people in the Bible seem to have had real choices, so why not this bowman? Joshua told the Israelites to choose whom they would serve, for example. Solomon seems to have chosen to stray from worshipping God. The inhabitants of Nineveh seem to have chosen to repent, when they didn't have to. Ananias and Sapphira chose to lie to the church, or at least it sounds like they did.
If 2) is true, what would God have done if the bowman chose not to fire? Did He have a backup plan? The Bible says that Bezalel and Oholiab were given skill so that they could work on the tabernacle. It even says that Pharaoh was raised up so that God's glory could be shown when Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go, which doesn't sound like he had a choice in the matter.
I am, of course, musing on predestination and foreknowledge, which are knotty ideas. I don't have an answer to my own questions on this. Some people do, but they don't agree with each other. God knows.
Thanks for reading. Did you just happen to read this? Were you predestined to? Did you choose to? Let me know.
There is only one occurrence of the word, random, in the Bible, or, rather, it occurs twice, in two places, as the same story is told in two of the historical books of the Old Testament. Here's one of them:
1 Kings 22:34 But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate. Therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, “Turn around and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded.” (ESV -- the wording of 2 Chronicles 18:33 is identical.) There is a note at random, which says that the original Hebrew literally says "drew his bow in his innocence." The NIV also uses random here, in both books, but without a text note.
The story is this. Micaiah, God's prophet, told wicked King Ahab that he would die in battle. Ahab disguised himself so that he wouldn't be recognized. The man mentioned in the verse shot Ahab. He was propped up in his chariot for some time, and the battle continued, but he died of the wound.
Did the bowman have a choice in this matter? Was what he did really random? At least two versions of the Bible use the word, random, here, as I have pointed out, which implies that there is at least a weak case that the bowman did, indeed, act on his own. Here are the possibilities, as I see them. (I'm excluding another possibility, namely that this event never happened.)
1) The bowman had no real choice in the matter. God directed him, presumably without the bowman being aware of it.
2) The bowman had a choice. God is outside of time, so knew in advance that the bowman would choose to fire, and would hit Ahab, but didn't make him do it.
3) The bowman had a choice, and God, if you please, just got lucky in predicting that Ahab would die. I don't seriously believe this one, but listed it for completeness.
Now, if 1) is true, random wouldn't seem to be the right word in scripture. I know, maybe it isn't the right word, but over and over again, people in the Bible seem to have had real choices, so why not this bowman? Joshua told the Israelites to choose whom they would serve, for example. Solomon seems to have chosen to stray from worshipping God. The inhabitants of Nineveh seem to have chosen to repent, when they didn't have to. Ananias and Sapphira chose to lie to the church, or at least it sounds like they did.
If 2) is true, what would God have done if the bowman chose not to fire? Did He have a backup plan? The Bible says that Bezalel and Oholiab were given skill so that they could work on the tabernacle. It even says that Pharaoh was raised up so that God's glory could be shown when Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go, which doesn't sound like he had a choice in the matter.
I am, of course, musing on predestination and foreknowledge, which are knotty ideas. I don't have an answer to my own questions on this. Some people do, but they don't agree with each other. God knows.
Thanks for reading. Did you just happen to read this? Were you predestined to? Did you choose to? Let me know.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Is there such a thing as chance?
A couple of months ago, I posted on "Origins 101." Julana, one of my faithful readers and commenters, commented as follows:
I think it's hard to argue for the existence of chance, in a purposeful universe, when you posit an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
It may be more difficult to argue against determinism.
I heard a friend use the terms "God's permissive will" and "God's active will" once. I understand the intuitive concept, but wonder how they could be logically worked out.
That's a most interesting, and important, idea, Julana. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient God, then how can there be any chance? As C. S. Lewis put it in The Silver Chair, "There are no accidents."
To begin my further consideration of this topic, I went to the Bible. I found just two references to chance:
Ecclesiastes 9:11 Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all. (ESV).
Our Lord, Himself, spoke of chance: Luke 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. (ESV)
This is in a story, namely that of the Good Samaritan. I think it would be dangerous to take it as a proof text for the existence of chance in the world, especially in inanimate objects, since it is about a choice made by a (possibly fictional -- perhaps Jesus made up the story to illustrate His point) human being, but it seems to me that it would be dangerous to ignore the use of that word completely, either. As to the verse in Ecclesiastes, I'm not sure that that can serve as a proof text for the existence of chance, in the sense of events that God doesn't control, either.
Here's a post that considers chance and creation seriously.
I hope to consider this matter further in the future. I'm not sure that I will come to any definitive conclusions. Note that this blog advertises itself as "musings . . ." on various topics.
Thanks for reading. Thanks for your comment, Julana.
I think it's hard to argue for the existence of chance, in a purposeful universe, when you posit an all-powerful, all-knowing God.
It may be more difficult to argue against determinism.
I heard a friend use the terms "God's permissive will" and "God's active will" once. I understand the intuitive concept, but wonder how they could be logically worked out.
That's a most interesting, and important, idea, Julana. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient God, then how can there be any chance? As C. S. Lewis put it in The Silver Chair, "There are no accidents."
To begin my further consideration of this topic, I went to the Bible. I found just two references to chance:
Ecclesiastes 9:11 Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all. (ESV).
Our Lord, Himself, spoke of chance: Luke 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. (ESV)
This is in a story, namely that of the Good Samaritan. I think it would be dangerous to take it as a proof text for the existence of chance in the world, especially in inanimate objects, since it is about a choice made by a (possibly fictional -- perhaps Jesus made up the story to illustrate His point) human being, but it seems to me that it would be dangerous to ignore the use of that word completely, either. As to the verse in Ecclesiastes, I'm not sure that that can serve as a proof text for the existence of chance, in the sense of events that God doesn't control, either.
Here's a post that considers chance and creation seriously.
I hope to consider this matter further in the future. I'm not sure that I will come to any definitive conclusions. Note that this blog advertises itself as "musings . . ." on various topics.
Thanks for reading. Thanks for your comment, Julana.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)