So you can quickly get
a "big picture" overview,
I suggest that you first read
the
condensed version of this page.
Theistic Action (What
does God do?)
When we examine origins, our worldviews (our
theories about reality; our theories of the world, used for living in the
world) play a crucial role. In my monotheistic Christian worldview,
I find it useful to think about God's theistic action (TA)
as if there are two aspects: foundational and active.
foundational
theistic action: God designed and created the universe using initial
theistic action, and "keeps it going" through sustaining
theistic action.
active
theistic action changes "what would have happened without the
active TA" into
what actually happens. In miraculous-appearing
theistic action an event differs from our expectations for how
things usually happen. But with normal-appearing guiding
theistic action everything appears normal and natural because
God's guidance blends smoothly with the usual workings of nature. {
Can "guided natural process" be detected? no
and yes }
Theistic Action in more detail
Natural Process
(Does it happen without God?)
A normal-appearing natural event can
be interpreted theistically (as "produced by God"), atheistically (natural
= without God), or in other ways: deistic, pantheistic, animistic,... or
agnostic.
For a theist, natural does
not mean "without God" because God designed and created
nature, and constantly sustains nature. And natural does
not mean "without control" because God can guide
nature so
one natural result occurs instead of another natural result.
A theist believes that a
supernatural God is involved in natural process, that the
natural depends on the supernatural. Although thinking about natural as
being not-supernatural is sometimes useful,
to avoid wrong implications we usually should contrast natural-appearing (normal-appearing)
with miraculous-appearing. A Christian
who believes the Bible will believe that God uses both modes of divine
action, natural and miraculous.
terminology: To avoid
giving the word "natural" (which
a theist thinks is good) an atheistic or pantheistic implication (which
a theist thinks is bad), and for other reasons, we
should
call
a claim that "only
nature exists" naturism,
not naturalism. {
Since there are two meanings — "only nature exists" and "only
natural process" — we
should use two terms; and we
should discuss the confusion caused by using one term with
two
meanings,
NATURALISM (naturism) and naturalism, as
explained in
another page. } It's
also important to remember the two differences between
philosophical naturism and methodological naturalism.
Design-Actions,
Questions, and Praise
In principle, God could have used
three types of design-action: 1A) design-directed
action at
the beginning of history (in a design and creation of the universe)
that eventually (as God continues to sustain the universe) results in production
of
a
feature
by
undirected
natural process, 1B) natural-appearing guidance of
natural process in design-directed action that occurs
during history but is not empirically detectable, 2)
miraculous-appearing design-directed
action that occurs during history and is empirically detectable.
In reality, did God use all three types
of
design-directed action? Was all design-action at the beginning of history,
in the initial design-and-creation? Or, during history, was normal-appearing
natural process
guided by God, and was it supplemented by occasional miracles?
Either way, we can praise God for
his
design-action. When we discover, through scientific study, God's clever
design of nature — for example, how a balance of forces has allowed stars
(like our sun) to operate for billions of years, and how this operation eventually
produced the heavy atoms (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen,...) that form our bodies
and our planet (yes, we and our home are made from stardust) — we should
praise God. We should also praise God for miracles. Whether a particular
feature of the universe (stars or stardust, first life or complex life) was
created by natural process or by miracle, we can praise God for his intelligence,
power, and wisdom, for what he
created and how he created it.
Theistic Evolution
is a Creationist Theory
A theory of theistic
evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary
creation * — proposes
that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which
everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic
evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical
evolution (to
form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological
evolution (to
form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to
form the first life) and biological evolution (for
the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.
* The
term "theistic evolution" describes the theistic actions of God
(as designer, sustainer, and guider) in evolution, while "evolutionary
creation" describes evolution
as God's method of creation. I use these terms interchangeably, and for
me they have
the
same
meaning. But some who hold this view prefer "evolutionary
creation" because it places the emphasis on creation, with evolution
describing the type of creation, while "theistic evolution" places
the emphasis on evolution, with theistic describing
the type
of evolution.
A Bad Argument against Theistic
Evolution
The main difference between theistic
evolution and atheistic evolution is their nonscientific interpretation of
scientific theories about evolution. A
nonscientific atheistic
interpretation views
a process of evolution as being not designed by God, not guided
by God, using matter not created
by God. { an example: NABT and "unsupervised
evolution" in 1997 } But
a nonscientific theistic
interpretation can disagree with these atheistic claims
by proposing that an evolutionary process was designed by
God (and perhaps also guided by God) and used matter created by God.
The bad theological argument occurs
in two stages: First,
an atheistic interpretation of evolution — claiming that it occurs without
God — is
accepted. (examples) Second,
there is a claim that "since evolution is atheistic, theistic evolution
is illogical." Actually, it's this argument that is theologically
illogical, because it is based on the atheistic claim that "natural" means "without
God," because it rejects the Bible-based claim that God
created and controls natural
process,
as explained above when I ask "Does natural process happen without
God?"
This argument is also discussed later,
in Naturalistic
Theories and Interpretations and an only-in-the-gaps theology which
implies that "God is
not active
in natural
process... so if it
isn't a miracle then God didn't do it."
Two Stages of
History
We should distinguish between two contexts
for theistic action: the formative history of
nature — in which different types of evolution (astronomical, geological,
chemical, and biological) may have occurred — and the salvation
history of humans that is recorded in the Bible.
Theistic Action
in History
In contrast with deism — which
proposes that God created the universe but then "let it run by itself" without
further theistic action — a basic theism requires
only that God is active, in ways that appear natural or miraculous, in
human history; it does not require theistic action in formative history. A Judeo-Christian
theism, based on the Bible, claims that God has been (and is) active
in the salvation history of humans, in ways that are usually natural-appearing
and occasionally miraculous-appearing.
If the two stages of history
are analogous, then God's actions were also "usually
natural-appearing and occasionally miraculous-appearing" in
formative history. Should we expect this theological analogy between
salvation history and formative history? Maybe. But not necessarily,
since there are similarities between the two stages of history and also
differences. A similarity is that during both histories a miracle
would "make something happen" that God wanted to occur, but
would not occur by natural process. A difference is that, during
salvation history, miracles also serve as symbolic "signs" that
are immediately observed by humans. Denis Lamoureux thinks this
difference is important: "These conservative
Christians [evolutionary creationists] believe that the Lord reserves
miraculous signs and wonders for personal relationships with men and
women. (source)"
According to a theory of fully
gifted creation proposed by Howard Van Till, a "nature without gaps" was
designed by God to be fully gifted, to have functional
integrity with a robust formational economy
(*) capable of naturally forming
complex physical and biological structures (like stars and life) so in
formative history a natural Total Evolution
could occur
without a need for miraculous-appearing theistic action. Van
Till claims that God could (because he is creative) and would (because he is
generous) give his creation everything it needed to fully evolve. / * I
don't
think this term is accurate, because the formative capabilities of nature would
be
extremely
"robust"
even
if
nature was designed to be mostly (but not totally) self-assembling by natural
process.
George Murphy offers a theological
defense of functional integrity by claiming
analogy
between the life of Jesus (who self-limited his divine power when he lived
among us and died on the cross) and the creation by Jesus (of a universe
that was fully gifted to evolve, so God could self-limit his power and let formative
history occur naturally without miracles). / but there is a
strong counter-argument: During his incarnation as a human, Jesus did many
miracles,
and his natural
crucifixion
was followed by miraculous resurrection. Therefore, two
modes
of
divine action (natural and miraculous) is the appropriate model if we
want to propose analogy between the human life of Jesus and the formative history
of nature.
Lamoureux, Van Till, and Murphy claim
that their view — with miracles during salvation history but not formative
history — is compatible with the Bible, and I agree. The Bible is
very clear when stating that God used miracles in creating the universe and in
salvation history, but is less clear about miracles in formative history, so
both views (with or without formative miracles) seem compatible with what the
Bible clearly teaches. Even if God designed the universe so there would
be no need for miracles in formative history, in salvation history God could
choose to use miracles for humans. Miracles are an important part of God's
plan for humans, to produce benefits that are primarily spiritual (but are also
physical, emotional, and intellectual) and to serve as signs, and teach us spiritual
lessons. For example, the miraculous resurrection of Jesus shows us that
He
has
conquered
death so He can offer us eternal life.
The next section asks a question: If
we believe that miracles occur in salvation history, should we be open
to the possibility that miracles also occurred in formative history?
Which
universe is more impressive? (humility about
personal preferences)
If the universe was designed to assemble itself by
natural process, this would be impressive (and glorifying for God) since it requires
a very clever design. But miracles are also impressive (and glorifying)
and they eliminate the need for total self-assembly.
Is it possible? Maybe not. There
might be an essential tension between operation and assembly, and perhaps
a universe with optimal
operation cannot also be self-assembling. ( Should
engineers try to design a self-assembling car? Why? ) ( Walter Bradley
asks whether a car designed to change its own spark plugs would be a good design,
or if this unnecessary
requirement would hinder the car's effectiveness in other, more important ways.
)
Is it preferable? Maybe God
enjoys interacting with his creation, like a gardener caring for a garden by
preparing the soil, planting seeds, watering, pulling weeds, and harvesting. Or,
in a musical analogy we can ask whether God designed nature so during formative
history it would be like a normal piano (requiring input by a performer) or
a player piano without a keyboard (so it can only play automatic music) or
an electronic keyboard (with automatic music available but also letting a performer
play).
In our search for truth, when
we ask "Is the universe self-assembling?" we are influenced by
differences in personal preference, which occur for reasons that are scientific,
theological, philosophical, emotional, and aesthetic. Some people want
the universe to be self-assembling, while others prefer miracles during assembly.
At one extreme there is a feeling
(not based on the Bible) that a God who is worthy will never do miracles
because he will "play by the rules he established" and will not "interfere
with the nature he designed." At the other extreme is an "only
in the gaps" view (also not Biblical) which claims that "if it
isn't a miracle then God didn't do it" so God does not get credit for
designing a universe that is fine-tuned to allow a natural production of
many wonderful phenomena (sunshine,...) without a need for miracles. Between
these extremes is a range of views that seem consistent with Bible-based
Christian theism.
Two theological arguments
are outlined above: A) two modes of action (usually natural and
occasionally miraculous) were used in salvation history and also, by
analogy, in formative history; B) since God is creative and
generous, he could and would give us a universe that was "fully
gifted" to
naturally evolve.
Both arguments are worthy
of careful consideration. But neither seems sufficiently compelling
to negate what we learn by a scientific study
of nature,
using evidence evaluated by logic, in our efforts to determine if the
universe actually is capable of total self-assembly by natural
process. And
if we believe that miracles occur in salvation
history, then we should be
open to the possibility that miracles also occurred in formative history. Instead
of thinking it is necessary to assume a naturalistic formative history,
scientists who are Judeo-Christian theists should feel free to follow
the evidence-and-logic wherever it leads, in a liberating open-minded
approach to searching for truth. { Two ways to be open-minded
are examined later: Is methodological
naturalism theologically acceptable? } If we want to
know how many teeth are in the mouth of a horse, instead of arguing
about
philosophies
and appealing
to authorities — as in the scholasticism of the Middle Ages before
the rise of modern science — we should find a horse and count the teeth.
During formative history, did
God use both modes of action or only natural process?
The evidence and logic
of science can help us in our efforts to determine which phenomena were produced
by each mode of action, to learn whether everything could be produced by
divinely designed natural process (as claimed in theistic evolution) or whether
(as
claimed in old-earth creation) occasional miraculous-appearing divine action
was also used. Currently "the jury is still
out on that question," say Loren Haarsma & Terry Gray in their
chapter in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. But either
way, whether God created with or without miracles, the process and results
of creation are awesomely impressive and glorifying for God.
With our current state
of knowledge it seems impossible to know with certainty, so instead
of criticizing either way as being "less worthy" it seems
wise to adopt a humble attitude. Each of us should admit, like
Job, that "surely
I speak of things I do not understand, things too wonderful for me
to know" and decide that either
way — whether it
happened with two modes of action or one — God's plan for design-and-creation
was wonderful and is worthy of our praise.
Therefore, a proponent
of old-earth creation (or young-earth creation) should be willing to
praise God for designing a universe that was totally self-assembling
by natural process, with no formative
miracles, in case this is how He did it. Similarly, a proponent of evolutionary
creation should be willing to praise God for using both modes of creative
action, for cleverly designing nature to produce most phenomena without miracles,
and
for powerfully doing miracles when natural process was not sufficient, since
this might be the way He did it.
Appropriate
Humility
We should
be appropriately humble about God's methods of creation, saying in public — and
believing in private, in our hearts and minds — that "IF God created
using another method (differing from the way I think He created), God is worthy
of our praise." But this "if... then..." humility is compatible
with also explaining why we think a particular view is most likely to be true. We
can be humble while we explain — using arguments based on theology and
science,
based
on our interpretations of scripture and nature — why we think our "if" is
more plausible
than the "if" proposed by other views.
For example, Haarsma and
Gray
acknowledge that "the jury is still out," but
the
main goal of their chapter, and of the preceding chapter by Gray, is to explain
the
scientific
support for a natural production of self-organization and increasing complexity. And
they close their chapter by claiming that "it seems
most promising — both scientifically and theologically — to study
biological complexity expecting to find more evidence that God designed into
it the ability to self-organize." Similarly, proponents of
other views
can explain the scientific and theological support for their views.
We should respect each other, but
respect does not require agreement. You can respect someone and their views,
while vigorously criticizing their views. If we are searching for truth,
we should avoid the intellectual laziness of postmodern relativism, because for
most questions about origins a skillful use of evidence and logic can be a valuable
source of knowledge, leading to improved understanding.
For dedicated Christians who care
for both people and ideas, the goal is an appropriate
humility, and this requires a balance between two desirable qualities — confidence (which
if overdeveloped can become rude arrogance) and humility (which can
become timid relativism) — that are in tension. But most of us
tend to err in the direction of overconfidence in our own theories, so trying
to develop the virtue of modest humility will usually
have a beneficial effect. {more about appropriate
humility}
Naturalistic Theories and Interpretations
In most fields of science — ranging
from physiology (re: the chemistry and physics of life) to embryology (re:
development from egg to adult) and meteorology (re: development of wind and
weather, rain and snow) — there are no theological criticisms of scientists
who accept naturalistic theories. Theistic evolution just extends this
general acceptance into other areas.
Scientific evidence for a design
of the universe favors all theistic theories, including theistic
evolution, over similar nontheistic theories. When scientists discover
that natural properties are "just right" for important natural processes — such
as the production of sunshine (due to the size of nuclear and gravitational
forces, mass-energy conversions,...) and the chemistry of DNA and proteins — a
theist proposes that God is responsible for this clever design of nature. A
theory of theistic evolution proposes that God designed nature so it
would naturally produce not just stars (in astronomical evolution)
but also life (in chemical
evolution)
and complex
life (in biological
evolution).
Scientifically, theistic biological
evolution agrees with conventional neo-Darwinism; theologically,
it is a theory of divine creation. As explained earlier (in criticizing a
bad argument) a nontheistic
interpretation of neo-Darwinism assumes that biological evolution
was driven by only chance and selection, which were not guided by God. But theistic
evolution can disagree with this extra-scientific claim (which
is the conventional assumption of mainstream biology) by proposing a designing
of natural process by God, and also a guiding
of natural process by God.
Could unguided
evolution achieve the goals of God?
A theory of evolutionary creation
proposes that God designed a universe which would naturally produce complex
physical and biological structures (like stars and life) so total evolution
(astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological) would occur by natural
process.
But does it claim that natural process
was materially sufficient (to produce physical
and biological complexity) or theologically sufficient (to
achieve the goals of God)?
When thinking about this question,
we need to ask: 1) How precisely defined were the goals for creation? Did
God want to produce exactly what occurred in nature's history, or would
something slightly different, or very different, have been satisfactory? 2)
How reproducible is unguided evolutionary history? If the history
of natural evolution was allowed to "run freely with unguided natural
process" a hundred times, would the outcomes be divergent (producing
different results) or convergent (with similar results)?
Even if evolutionary history was
more convergent than most scientists think, it seems that some guidance
would be necessary to achieve the goals of God, unless these goals were
extremely flexible. This guidance, which would produce a desired
natural result instead of another natural result, would seem especially
useful in creating humans with the characteristics (physical, mental,
emotional, ethical, spiritual) and environment (planetary, ecological,...)
desired by God. {the
origin of humans}
Theistic Evolution: What makes it
theistic?
What is "theistic" about theistic evolution? In
what
ways does theistic evolution (with God actively
involved) differ from deistic evolution (with God
setting nature in motion and then just "letting it run")? Were the creative
actions of God restricted to an initial designing (and continual sustaining)
of the universe, or was there also theistic guidance during formative history? Would
some guidance be necessary to achieve the goals of God? What types and
amounts of guidance are proposed, by various scientists, in their theories of
theistic evolution?
Some concepts of theistic
action (TA) — especially the difference
between foundational TA and active
TA — can help us think about TE and guidance: foundational
TA (the initial-TA that determined the characteristics
of nature, and sustaining-TA that lets nature continue) allows history,
but active TA (either guidingTA or miraculousTA) makes
a difference in history. Some advocates of theistic evolution try to
avoid
deism
by
saying "God
actively sustains the universe," which is true but is not sufficiently
theistic because (since sustaining-TA does not guide history) it does not help
us understand
how
God could achieve his "goals for the creation" unless, as described above, these
goals were
very imprecise and flexible.
On the other hand,
some evolutionary creationists are more explicit about guidance. The following statements are
from an excellent book, Perspectives
on an Evolving Creation. The editor, Keith Miller, says: "The
Bible describes a God who is sovereign over all natural events, even those we
attribute to chance such as the casting of lots or tomorrow's weather...[so]
chance events certainly pose no theological barrier to God's
action
in
and through
the evolutionary process. Some
theologians see God's action exercised through determining the indeterminacies
of natural processes... both at the
quantum level and at the level of large
chaotic
systems." In another chapter, Terry Gray,
who "comes from a fairly conservative Calvinistic
theological perspective," says "I believe
that... all of the events envisioned by an evolutionist are under God's oversight.
... God is as much in control of the outcome of the process as he is if
he had
zapped things into
existence without any process. Obviously, this is not the random, undirected
evolution of atheistic naturalists." {details
about guidance}
Theological Questions about Theistic
Action
Claims for theistic action lead to important
theological questions: Can God (or does God) control anything? ...
control everything? (i.e., Do unguided events ever occur?) If God does
exert total control (or can but does not), why do bad things happen — due
to nature (as in a hurricane) or the actions of humans — in a universe
operated by a God who is all-powerful and loving? How does human freedom
and responsibility fit into the picture?
Why isn't God more obvious?
God sometimes does spectacular
miracles in salvation history, so in formative history why is there any evidence — like
a general increase of biocomplexity and biodiversity, with features that
give an appearance of common descent, and long delays (e.g., 3 billion years
from the first life to the Cambrian Explosion) between major biostructural
innovations — that might lead some rational people to propose "atheistic
evolution" as an explanation?
Perhaps the universe was designed
so all creation would occur by natural process.
Or maybe "miracles in formative
history" would be recognized if scientific theories were not being constructed
in a community biased by its methodological assumption that everything
has occurred by natural process.
Or maybe a "veiling of miracles" during
the creation process is one aspect of a state of uncertainty intended
by God, who seems to prefer a balance of evidence, with enough logical
reasons to either believe or disbelieve, so a person's heart and will
can make the decision. Each person can use evidence (historical,
personal, and scientific) to estimate the plausibility of various worldviews,
but there is no logically rigorous proof for any worldview. Therefore,
we have freedom to choose what we really want, and an opportunity to
develop the "living by faith" character that is highly valued by God,
with a trust in God serving as the foundation for all thoughts and actions
in daily living. { Is
there proof of God? }
Religious Implications
Advocates of theistic evolution span
a wide range of theology, from generic deism to theistic Christianity.
If
a person's aesthetic preference (that an "elegant God" would not
interfere with nature) becomes theological belief (that God never interferes
with nature), it will be easier for this person to let their worldview drift
from theism into deism, with a passive God who is not theistically active
(who never performs miracles and doesn't even guide the flow of natural
events) in formative history, in biblical salvation history, or in our everyday
lives. This isn't a necessary result of theistic evolution, especially
when its proponents emphasize the actions of God (both natural and miraculous)
in
salvation history,
but sometimes these actions are not emphasized.
Having faith in natural-appearing
theistic action is especially important for everyday living . When
our prayers include a "request for action" we are usually asking
for action that is natural-appearing. God also works through miracles,
but does this much less often. The letters of Paul (in Romans 12:2,
Galatians 5:22-23, Colossians 1:9-11,...) describe how God, through a natural-appearing
spiritual connection with believers, supplies us with what we need (faith,
hope, love, joy, courage, strength, peace, patience, kindness, mercy, humility,
wisdom,...) for a full life.
Theistic
evolution can be associated with theology that, in other ways, is either strong
or weak. In this page, I'm defending only "theistic evolution theology"
that in other ways — such
as believing that God does miracles during salvation history — is theologically
strong.
A person with weak theistic beliefs will
probably adopt theistic evolution, but this is not logically equivalent to
a claim that a person who
adopts theistic evolution has weak theistic beliefs. Similarly, an atheist
must believe in naturalistic evolution, so "if atheism then evolution" is true,
but a reversed claim ("if evolution then atheism") is not true because some
evolutionists are not atheists. { To clearly understand this important
principle of logic, think about why the true statement "all dogs are animals" cannot
be reversed into a claim that "all animals are dogs" which is false
because some animals are not dogs. } Therefore, guilt by association — implying
that since atheists are evolutionists, evolutionists must be atheists — is
not logical and is not true.
Theological Questions: Is evolutionary creation a theologically acceptable position? Does the Bible provide evidence against an all-natural formative history, or should we say "the Bible says God created, but does not explicitly specify a method of creation"? / Is death (of animals) before sin (by humans) compatible with Genesis 1-3? Is a long process of old-earth evolution (or old-earth creation) too inefficient and cruel to be the creation method used by God? { Yes, there are Bible-based answers for questions about "inefficiency" and animal death before human sin. }
Social Implications
In society, what are the effects (psychological,
sociological, ethical, spiritual,...) of a widespread belief in evolution? In
what ways does it affect the ideas and actions of individuals and societies? When
we ask "if evolutionary beliefs, then ___", how should we fill in the blank? {
This complex topic is very important, but it will not be discussed
here. }
Humility and Love
When we ask "HOW did God create?" we
cannot know for certain what the truth is, so humility is justified. Even
if Christians disagree about some aspects of theistic evolution, we are brothers
and sisters in Christ, and we can join together in joyously proclaiming, "You
are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you
created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being. (Revelation
4:11)"
How does God want us to treat
each other? Jesus
said, "As I have loved you, so you must love one
another. If you have love for one another, then everyone will know that you
are my disciples. (John 13:34-35)" {more
about truth and respect, when we look at young-earth
claims about theology and science}
What
is the scientific support for evolutions?
I think the scientific evidence
for an
old earth (and old universe) is overwhelmingly strong. Proponents of theistic
evolution claim that evidence for evolution (E) is also very strong. Is
their
claim justified?
What is the scientific support for evolution? This
is a sloppy question that cannot be properly answered, because it is imprecise. Instead,
we should ask about four (or more) natural evolutions: astronomical, geological,
chemical, and biological. Regarding these questions, here are my current
general conclusions:
I think the scientific support is
very strong
for
astronomical E and geological E, but very weak for chemical E. For biological
evolution, the support varies for each of four sub-questions, about micro-E (very
strong),
fossil-E (very strong), descent-E (strong), and Total Macro-E (questionable). Some
reasons
for
my
conclusions are in pages about astronomical
evolution (evidence
for a design of
nature,
and simple reactions producing complexity), geological
evolution (carefully examining the details of flood geology
and
asking "How
old is the
earth?"), chemical
evolution (in the context of questions about methodological naturalism and
intelligent
design),
and biological evolution (the principles
that should be used in
a
logical
evaluation
of
evolution
and creation).
What
does "God of the gaps" mean? (excerpts)
When current naturalistic scientific
theories (claiming to explain some feature in the formative history of
nature) seem implausible, is this science gap due
to the inadequacy of current science, or does it indicate a nature gap
(a break in the continuous cause-effect chain of natural process) that
was bridged by miraculous-appearing theistic action? Sometimes, a
theory proposing a nature gap is ridiculed
by calling it a "God of the gaps" theory. This is confusing
because "God of the gaps" can imply
a criticism of four different views, and the intended meaning is rarely
clarified. Of the four implied criticisms, two are justified, but
two are not.
What are the justified criticisms? First,... Second,...
What are the unjustified
criticisms? First,... Second,... {
You can read the full
section in God of the Gaps: What does
it mean? Should we say it? }
Those who use a "God of the
gaps" label usually don't clarify which of the four views they are criticizing,
so usually they are implicitly criticizing a "gaps
are possible" view and proposing a "gaps
are impossible" view. .....
In my opinion, "God
of the gaps" should be eliminated from our vocabulary because it is
imprecise. ... Does it refer to a "gaps are possible" view
(this is theologically acceptable for a Christian theist) or a specific theory
claiming "a gap did occur" (this should be evaluated using evidence
and logic), or an "always in the gaps" habit (that is scientifically
naive) or an "only in the gaps" view (that is theologically unacceptable
and should be criticized)?
Instead, to improve clarity
in communication a critic could say that someone is implicitly endorsing
a "God only in the gaps" view, or naively thinking "a science-gap
is always a nature-gap," or not agreeing that "a nature-gap is
theologically impossible."
But simply saying "God
of the gaps" is imprecise... and it only attaches
a label instead of clearly expressing a logical concern. ... As
explained in the page-introduction, this term "can
cause confusion (when a reader wonders "what is the intended meaning?")
and miscommunication (when a writer intends one meaning and a reader
receives another) and irritation (by those who are being wrongfully stereotyped
and having their views misrepresented)."
When someone criticizes a theory
by calling it a "God of the gaps" theory, ask "What exactly
do you mean by this?"
• If they are criticizing
a claim that "gaps are possible so we should consider this possibility," ask "What
is the alternative? Are you claiming that gaps are impossible, or
do you know with certainty that a totally natural Total Evolution Of The
Universe is certainly true and did occur?"
• If they mean "only
in the gaps," agree with the criticism, but check to see whether this
is being proposed (it rarely is) and don't allow an either-or choice between "only in
the gaps" and "never in the gaps because it's impossible" as
if these were the only two choices.
• And if they're questioning
a specific historical claim that "in this situation a nature-gap did
occur," you can have a respectful discussion about the scientific and/or
theological merits of this claim. Similarly, a historical claim that "in
this situation a nature-gap did not occur" or "a nature-gap has
never occurred" (*) should be evaluated
based on its scientific and theological merits.
* A "never
in the gaps" claim could be based on a theological argument
that a nature-gap is impossible (an atheist will claim that a non-existent
God could not do it, while a theist can claim that God would not do
it) or a scientific argument, based on evidence-and-logic,
that God did not do it.
Is
methodological naturalism theologically acceptable?
Currently, most scientists adopt methodological
naturalism in science by including only natural causes in their scientific
theories. But according to the Bible, history has included both natural
and non-natural events. Is a naturalistic science compatible with Christianity? I
think the answer is "yes" because Christians — who believe
that non-natural miracles occur, and who therefore should view a naturalistic
science as only one aspect of a broader "search for
truth" that considers all possibilities, including the non-natural — can
accept
methodological
naturalism
while rejecting atheistic philosophical naturism.
According to a nontheistic (atheistic,
pantheistic,...)
religious philosophy of naturism, nature is all
that exists, with no God and no divine action, so everything that happens is
caused by matter/energy in natural operation. This philosophical naturism differs
from methodological naturalism in
two ways. First, methodological is not philosophical; a theist can
adopt a methodology (for the purpose
of doing science) without accepting it as a philosophy (about
the way the world really is) that is used as a basis for living. Second,
naturalism
is
not
naturism,
as
explained
below. ..... { This explanation is not "below"
but is in a page about Methodological
Naturalism. }
Two Options for Christians
The Bible clearly states that God
sometimes
does
miracles, so
all
Christians should be open to the possibility of miracles during formative
history. But a
devout Christian who believes "miracles occurred
in salvation history" could, after a careful evaluation of the theological
and
scientific
evidence, conclude
that "formative history was all-natural." But should this naturalistic
conclusion be the only possibility that is considered during scientific evaluation,
as required by methodological naturalism?
In my opinion, there are two rational, theologically
acceptable
ways for Christians to view methodological naturalism (MN). Among scientists
(and other scholars) who are Christians, some support one view and some think
the other is better.
• In one view, a Christian
accepts MN but considers MN-science to be only one aspect of a broader
"open search for truth" that considers all possibilities, including
miracles. In
this open search, MN-science is respected as an
expert witness, but is not allowed to be the judge and jury when we're defining
rationality and searching for truth. { Everyone who accepts MN should
also adopt MN-Humility by recognizing the possibility
of unavoidable error in MN-Science because if an event
really did involve a non-natural cause, any explanation of this event by MN-Science
(in terms of only natural causes) will be incomplete or incorrect. }
• In another view, proponents of open
science
propose replacing rigid-MN with a testable-MN in
which scientific investigations always begin by assuming "it happened by
natural
process" but consider this to be an assumption, a theory to be tested rather
than a conclusion that must be accepted. Alvin Plantinga explains the rationality
of this view: "a Christian academic and scientific
community ought to pursue science in its own way, starting from and taking for
granted what we know as Christians." If we think miracles are
possible, why should we assume (while doing science) that miracles are impossible?
In both approaches, a Christian
believes that natural process was designed by God, is sustained by God, and
can be guided by God, so "natural" does not mean "without
God", and a naturalistic explanation does not lead to a conclusion
of atheistic naturism.
An open
search is theologically acceptable and intellectually rational for
a Christian, but only when it is truly open, when a person is willing to "consider
all possibilities." This will not occur if methodological
naturalism (which says "no miracles inside science") is combined
with a typical God-of-the-gaps criticism (which
implies "no
formative miracles outside science") because miracles
are considered to be impossible and unworthy of serious consideration,
an "open search for truth" has become a closed
search.
Although accepting MN can be rational
and theologically acceptable for a Christian, I don't think MN is the
most effective method in a scientific search for truth about nature.
APPENDIX What
are my views? Can we observe a guiding
of natural process? (no and yes) Does a theory of evolution have
to be atheistic? |
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
This page is a condensed version of a
longer page about theistic evolution (49 k + 24 k, compared
with 38 k and 5 k in this page) which explores some ideas
in more depth (but ignores other ideas that I've developed more
recently), and poses theological questions that
are examined
in other pages: Is evolutionary creation — a
creation theory proposing that God's method of creation was to
cleverly design
a universe in which life would naturally evolve — a theologically
acceptable position? Does the Bible, in Genesis 1-2 or elsewhere,
provide evidence against (or for) an all-natural formative history? Is
it justifiable to claim that "the Bible says God created, but does
not specify a method of creation"? Is death (of animals)
before sin (by humans) compatible with Genesis 1-3? Is a
long process of evolution (or old-earth creation) too inefficient
and cruel
to be the creation
method used by God? |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te2-cr.htm
Copyright © 1998 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved