Debating Intelligent Design

My very good friend Jae Lewis posted on his Facebook wall this evening about the overwhelmingly improbable spontaneous existence of a life supporting universe.  A very interesting dialogue followed that I thought was worth sharing.  Feel free to join the discussion on Facebook or here on our blog.

Jae Lewis

Science now knows that life prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than a life permitting universe.

Our existence has defied the odds so authoritatively that "random chance" is now a very ignorant answer. The only two remaining educated answers are Design or Multiple Universes. Guess which one has ZERO empirical evidence? That's right, the Multi-Verse Theory = a wild guess.

Most educated answer today = Design = only Minds Design (numbers are not causal) = only a Person has a Mind = a Person with a Mind who chose to Design humans must value humans = Jesus Christ

Jaret Burkett 

Technically, we only know of one universe. However, the odds of life sprouting in any given galaxy is small. Lets say 1,000,000 to 1. However, any data on the subject is just guessing and is based on carbon based life like we have here when life could be based on any particular atom theoretically. There is also an assumption that a planet would have to be in the Goldilock zone to support life. An assumption that we have found to be false even on our own planet with life existing in some of the most hostile environments. Now, with the infinite size of space, we can run a simple mathematical equation. If it is 1,000,000 to one odds, which it is probably better odds for non carbon based lifeforms, the math is: ∞/1,000,000=∞. So technically life sprouting in the universe randomly has an infinite chance to happen and infinite number of times. Now the odds of us happening to be one of these species that evolved to our state is very very rare. But here we are. Someone who has a very rare disease had very little odds of having the disease. But being that person with it, you still have it despite the odds. Now, I am not ruling out the possibility of creationism, and that is because it is possible. But evolution outside of creationism is also possible so it should not be ruled out either. And I hate to quote South Park, but I will. When they were learning about evolution and they told the kids that because of it there is no God, Stan chimed in with. "There could still be a God. Couldn't evolution be the answer to how not the answer to why?"

Tim Edwards 

Your being a little short sighted with your odds. Space has a populated size, and the odds of life being on this planet are more like a billion trillion. Most staticians/astronomers/biologists would agree that it is it is (if you don't want to use the word miraculous) amazing that there is life. In fact even when you account for the vast number of galaxies we can see now, statistically there is still quite a low chance of there being life on other planets.

Jaret Burkett 

Well it is also arguable the God just popping into existence being as complex as he is and and powerful as he is is more highly unlikely. If it is unlikely for human beings, a simple creature in comparison to God, to just pop into existence. Then it is far more unlikely for God to happen to pop into existence. All i am saying is even the most die hard atheist still leave room for the possibility that creationism could be true. Richard Dawkins admits this in the God delusion. It is simply because we will never have enough evidence to conclude 100% one way or the other. All i am saying is that creationist should use the same measure that it is possible for it to have happend without God, however unlikely it may seem. Either way the searching of the universe and the exploration of the past and the creatures who have evolved on this planet since millions of years ago will only get us closer to the truth. Weather it be creationism or big bang, or aliens, we must search the evidence and find the truth if it ever comes to be. Jesus as an example showed that sometimes you have to go against the grain of common religious beliefs to more accurately approach the truth. He showed that the ideals of the old testament and strict laws once worked, but were inapplicable in his time. Perhaps today in this age of knowledge we are in, it is time to accept that old stories about how the earth was created in the mind of prehistoric men, is not applicable with our current understanding. We must adapt our thinking.

Tim Edwards 

Also, I might add that Jae's stance was not against evolution. I think a minority of Christians oppose evolution. Jae was arguing for a designed and created universe. One that so uniquely supports life that many opponents of creationism fall back to having no more than faith in thearies such as infinite universes. (typing on a computer > ipad)

The astronomer Hugh Ross was drawn to Christianity in early in his life because he found a remarkable accuracy in the book of Genesis to what he observed in science. He has written a few books outlining in great detail how the bible is actually amazingly accurate when compared to what we now know about how a universe and planets form. I think it would at the very least be a fascinating read. The trick is, there is no 100% proof one way or the other. You can't current prove, empirically, the existence of God, or vice-versa. The debate does however tip heavily towards the existence of God. There are many pillars of rational thought that Christianity has to stand on and is backed up with philosophy, science, and history (and don't forget experiential evidence). Would you rather stand back from religion merely because you can't get to 100% even when the scale leans in its favor? The bible doesn't guarantee doubt-proof evidence, but it also doesn't make allowances for rejecting it for a "lack of evidence".

Phillip Knight 

Jaret, I take issue with a few of the points you made in your posts and would like to address them. I do however appreciate your openness on the subject. Anyone who espouses the idea that God CERTAINLY does NOT exist can hardly be taken seriously for the reasons you have pointed out.

First, I think the statistics you use in your example of “life in any given galaxy” are exceptionally inaccurate. If we consider the list of required constants and ratios (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravitation constant, electromagnetic force, expansion rate, mass density etc..) and ask the question “what are the odds of a universe that permits life”, we find that it is 1 chance in ten to the power of 229 (see research of Physisist Lee Smolin). That’s 1 with 229 zeros after it, not 1 in a million. Said another way, the odds of a life permitting universe are unfathomably small. At this degree the word “impossible” comes to mind. Also, we are talking about the entire universe, not just a galaxy.

Second, you gave the example of ∞/1,000,000 = ∞. I would caution your use of this example because this mathematical equation only points out the rational impossibility of anything physical existing infinitely (either time or individual object). Your mathematical equation is mathematically impossible. A quick example of why infinity cannot exist physically is this: if planet A orbits the sun twice every 365 days and planet B orbits the sun once every 365 then how many more times has planet A orbited the sun relative to planet B over an infinite span of time? The answer is zero. Both planets would have orbited an infinite number of times. This is logically and mathematically absurd. My point is there cannot exist anything physical that is infinite. You may find a particular article (recently released) by Alexander Vilenkin of Tuft University interesting. The article explains why none of the proposals for an eternal universe are workable: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and the "cosmic egg" hypothesis. In each case, the mathematics and the laws of physics can't eliminate the need for a starting point. This forces the community of naturalistic astronomers to face what they have been trying to avoid: a beginning. In response to this article/research Stephen Hawking said "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God." The evidence is mounting at a nauseating level that our universe at some point began to exist.

Third, you argue that it is “more unlikely” that God could pop into existence than a universe. I am not sure that you can support that argument in any objective way but I strain to even object to it because it is also fallacious given your misunderstanding of the definition of God. God as defined would not “pop” into existence. He would be eternal, his existence infinite. Therefore your example does not make sense. A universe could pop into existence (being caused by something), God, by definition, could not. So to analyze the relative likelihood of either is illogical. It is important to note here (given my second argument above) that God is not physical and therefore allowed to be infinite. God would be uncreated, having always existed. It seems I can argue much easier than you that an infinite immaterial God exists than you can an infinite universe. In a similar vein I can also point out why your point is mathematically impossible and mine is not.

Also, you say that you “do not have enough evidence to conclude 100% one way or the other”. I find this to be a very interesting argument, as we NEVER have 100% evidence for anything. We act every day of our lives on faith (will my marriage succeed, will I get killed driving to work, does this food contain bacteria that will kill me etc…)

Last, you suggest that “in this age of knowledge” we should “adapt our thinking”. I agree completely but I am not sure you would appreciate the outcome. As our knowledge of physics, cosmology, biology and the like increases we are finding more and more need for a creator. Physics shows us the impossibility of a universe existing without God, cosmology shows us the FINITE existence of the universe and as a result the need for an uncaused cause, and finally biology shows us that at the most basic level life is guided by language (DNA) which we can only relate to an attribute to an intelligent mind.

Middle Knowledge Anyone?

Last year I was invited by a friend to join a group and study Systematic Theology as taught through Wayne Grudem's condensed tome "Bible Doctrine".  Little did I know, I knew little about God.  I can say that this study has been a profoundly positive experience.  We are called in the Gospel of Luke to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind".  This study would be an exercise in the latter.  Studying God's word only serves to strengthen our walk, correct our mistakes, and make us fall more in love with our Creator and Father.

This study is not without its trials however and as we found quickly this exercise involves a bit of heavy lifting.  As we approached the topics of God's Sovereignty/Providence and The Doctrine of the Application of Redemption the group had more questions than our book had answers.  The author, espousing a reformed view, introduced to the majority of us to a theology we had never heard before.  For many of us it was troubling, for some interesting, and for others completely outrageous.

Some in the group agreed with the view of the author and some certainly did not.  I found myself in a slightly different situation.  I understood both points of view, found scripture to support both, but knew that both could not be true.  I would like to briefly explain my dilemma and then offer a solution that I feel is reasonable and well supported by scripture and logic alike.  

It seems from my observation that the Christian world is divided primarily into two camps, the Calvinists (reformed theology) and the Arminians.  Both groups are nearly identical in their beliefs but part ways with respect to God's sovereignty over creation, his interaction with creation, and the process through which he redeems sinners.

Calvinism

The Calvinist holds that God is sovereign over all things, ordains all events, and renders all things certains.  God, according to a Calvinist, is even sovereign over the hearts and decisions of Men (although they claim that Man continues to make free decisions, see compatibilism).  God ordains all things (including rape and the holocaust) but is not morally responsible.  The Calvinist defers to the secret will of God and quotes St. Paul when he says "does the potter not have a right over His clay".  Said another way "God is righteous and just and can do what he pleases".  We find scripture that seems to support this view of God's sovereignty over creation:

Ps. 115:3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.

Ps. 135:6 Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in seas and in all deeps.

Ps. 103:19 The Lord has established His throne in the heavens; and His sovereignty rules over all.

1 Sam. 2:6-7 The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts.

Heb. 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under His feet. For in subjecting all things to Him, He left nothing that is not subject to Him.

Eph. 4:6 One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Pr. 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.

Calvinists also hold that God elects those whom will be saved.  It is not based on foreknowledge but is rather credited to God's secret and sovereign will.  It then follows that Christ did not die for the sins of the world but rather for those whom God elected.  This election is unconditional.  God moves irresistibly in the hearts of sinners to turn them towards himself.  The reprobate (those not chosen by God) cannot chose God.  They will never have a chance to do so and the Calvinist holds that Christ did not die for their sins also.

I can appreciate the Calvinist's humble view of their own salvation.  No man can boast here.  Salvation was truly and 100% a gift.  Man had no part in it, not even a decision.

I do however have an enormous problem with the idea that Christ did not die for all but for the elect.  What if my son Parker is not elect?  Is there anything that I can do?  Also, the Calvinists propose an interaction between God and man that is quite unusual.  Your thoughts and actions are guided according to the will of God.  God, in order to accomplish his purposes guides your heart and thoughts.  

Arminianism

Arminians hold that God, desiring to experience true relationship with His creation, has suspended his sovereignty (or rather is Sovereign over his sovereignty).  Arminians hold that tragedies (like rape or the holocaust) happened against God's will.  God did not will for free agents to do such things but has left said free agents to make free choices.  In other words "God is not in control of what happens on earth, free agents are truly free".  Arminians hold that Christ died for the sins of the world and salvation is available to everyone.  In a similar vein they believe that man can resist God's grace or fall from it.  Eternal security to an Arminian is not certain.  A crisis of faith late in life or at any time for that matter may cause you to fall from grace and lose your salvation.  To make sense of the Doctrine of Election Arminians hold that God elected "Christ" and that anyone who believes in Him is a member of this group.

Scripture seems to suggest (in defiance of the Calvinist view) that man has some responsibility in his salvation.  Christ calls us to "choose this day whom you will serve".  Why would Christ command us to chose if God is sovereign over our choices or if we have no choice at all (i.e the elect)?  Scripture offers the following:

"choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" (Josh. 24:15)

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Mt. 11:28)

"If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God." (Jn. 7:17)

"If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink." (Jn. 7:37)

"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized" (Acts 2:38)

"Repent therefore and be converted" (Acts 3:19)

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)

"but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)

"Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22:17)

My Confusion

These two very well thought out theologies are enormously conflicting.  I understood the Calvinists argument that God is Sovereign.  I have read the various scripture that suggests that God chose us, we did not chose him.  Election seems clear and in disagreement with the Arminians view.  At the same time man is called to "pick up his cross" and "chose this day".  What is the point of our choosing if it is in fact God who choses?  What of the reprobate?

Insert Middle Knowledge

In the 16th Century a Jesuit theologian name Luis de Molina proposed a rather fantastic philosophical idea in an attempt to bridge the gap between mans free will and God's providence.  To do so he inserted the idea of Middle Knowledge.  Middle Knowledge derives its name from a logical ordering of events in creation.

The idea in layman's is this:

Before the creation of the world God in his omnipotence (knowledge of all things indefinitely) understood all necessary truths.  He did not know anything that was untrue.

IN ADDITION to his knowledge of necessary truths he is also aware of all counterfactuals.  A counterfactual is a statement like this: "if Phillip goes to Subway, he will freely order a 6" Meatball sub".  Even if I never go to Subway God knows what I would freely choose should I goto Subway.

It then follows that God in his omnipotence could create more than one possible world.  The world we exist in today is not the only world God had to chose from.  God could instead (before creation) survey an unlimited number of worlds.  He would know in each of those worlds all counterfactuals truths.  He could have actualized a world in which Hitler freely chose to be a pastor of church and in which the holocaust never took place.  Similarly he could have actualized a world in which I did not freely chose him.  God understood before the actualization of any one world what would happen in all situations in that given world and all others.  In conjunction with this foreknowledge of events and counterfactuals he intertwined his plan of Salvation beginning with Abraham and concluding with Christ and the apostles.   It is important to note that without God's "Middle Knowledge" or awareness of subjunctive conditions God would only have a knowledge of the future but lacking an ability to plan events (say the crucifixion of Christ).  God must understand not only what will happen but what will happen IF...

God chose to actualize one of an unlimited number worlds, we find ourselves in that world today.  By invoking this middle knowledge we are able to reconcile so many of the problems inherent in Arminianism and Calvinist (but mostly in Calvinism).

Is God sovereign over all things (including say the Holocaust)?

Yes, God knew when he actualized this world that it would take place through the free agent Adolf Hitler.  God ordained the Holocaust in the sense that he actualized the world in which Hitler freely chose to carry it out but he is not directly responsible for it, Hitler was given a free will.  God did know that Hitler would freely to chose to commit those atrocious murders.

Does God elect and are we predestined?

God knew before he actualized this world who would freely chose him and who would freely reject him.  In this way God is sovereign over those who receive salvation (by pushing "the button" to actualize this world he sovereignly chose those who would chose him).  He could have chose another world in which an entirely different group of people freely chose him.  While we freely chose, he chose this world according to his will.

The focus of Molinism is on God's knowledge of subjunctive conditionals or counterfactuals. God knew before creation what would happen in any version of creation that he chose.  He is sovereign over all things because he chose in the beginning which version of creation to create.  We are retain our libertarian free will as we live in the world created.

It is important to note that foreknowledge is not synonymous with fatalism.  Because God knows what will happen does not mean that he has rendered it certain.  This is a logical fallacy.  Today I went to Strawberry Fields and picked up lunch for my family.  I ordered my usual border chicken wrap.  That border chicken wrap when made had a definite weight x.xxxxxxxxxx... ounces.  God new before the wrap was made what the ultimate weight would be but it does not follow then that he rendered certain the weight.  The weight was unknown to me, although it could have been known.  God, different from me, knows all things including what the weight of my wrap would be.

In summary I am in disagreement with Calvinists about how God elects and brings sinners to salvation.  At the same time I am in disagreement with Arminians that God is not sovereign over all things.  We must rather understand his sovereignty in a different context, one of Middle Knowledge.  I am a Molinist.  Spread the word...

If I have this baby my life will be ruined

I have become convincingly dependent on God for everything. I say "convincingly" because I have never been so sure in my life that, apart from Christ, I am nothing more than a frail, continually sinful COWARD who can't even muster up one righteous thought. When I step out of the Spirit my life looks like a dog returning to its own vomit. Everything that used to be thrilling in this world is now devoid of any pleasure. It's simply the law of diminishing return. Every day that you wake up in a world where everything revolves around you, where the number one objective is your own happiness including the circumvention of people, places and things that could possibly abate that happiness; it takes a little more of the world everyday to feel as satisfied as you felt yesterday.

Pause and think about that...

Tomorrow you will need more happiness than you did yesterday to be satisfied. A year from now you will need 10 times more just to stave off depression. Its true isn't it? That's why lives that play out like this can get so dark in sin that they are unrecognizable. The definition of pleasure becomes so warped that you can't even distinguish it from atrocity. Think I'm being overly dramatic? How about this: "If I have this baby my life will be ruined." How many times do you think these words have been spewed over the past 30 days around the world? This is warped, especially if you rearrange the words just a hair to say, "If I murder this baby my life will be much more fun." I bet a year before this statement was ever uttered that the requirements for this persons happiness were deceivingly much cheaper (Assuming you view life as valuable). Self-love is a monster that's being sold to us as an answer.

Who can satisfy my soul like Jesus? This is actually true. Every other taste has become bland or bitter compared to what I've tasted at my Fathers table. Things that used to melt in my mouth like, success, money, praise, comfort or even something like piety, have all become dirty rags compared to what is in His cup. Christ offers us the law of cumulative return, or in other words the old snowball effect. Every day that you wake up in a world where everything revolves Christ, where the number one objective is the happiness of others including the intentional sharing of the burdens of the lowest in our world; it takes a little less everyday to feel completley satisfied. Paul said that he discovered how to have joy even through SUFFERING. That's what I'm talking about. It can make the greatest mountain of pain suddenly hopeful and the smallest provision seem like your cup is over flowing. Heidi Baker, an astonishing missionary in Africa, said that God gave her a vision that Western Christians where living off the crumbs from the Masters table, missing the feast that was happening right in front of them. How devastating is that to hear?! C'mon! We are eating Ramen off the ground in order to hang onto what?! Our money? Our autonomy? Our finley tuned plans? Our HAPPINESS? These are the things that keep us underneath the table in the sty. Self-love, Self-preservation, Self-reliance = Self-Centeredness.

I pray that we can get off the ground and take our seat back at our Fathers table.