Originally, the ideas below were in the appendix of a page comparing the
Similarities and Differences between
Old-Earth Views: Progressive Creation & Evolutionary
Creation but it was too large already so the appendix was moved to here:
In the "Similarities and
Differences"
page, the views of Stephen Jones are featured in two sections: "Progressive
Creation and Common Descent" plus "Scientific
Evidence
for Common
Descent." Here is some additional information and comments:
Jones defines his own view of Progressive
Mediate Creation: "I believe (on the basis
of Genesis 1) that God created the raw materials of the universe immediately from
out-of-nothing, and thereafter He created mediately by working (both
naturally and supernaturally) through natural processes and existing materials. Progressive
Mediate Creation (PMC) lies between Theistic Evolution (TE) and Progressive
Creation (PC) on the Creation-Evolution spectrum. TE tends to deny
(or downplay) God working supernaturally through natural processes, while
PC tends to deny (or downplay) God working naturally through natural causes."
In the definitions proposed
by Jones, deistic evolution is "universe
created by God; thereafter life originated and developed fully naturally,
with God playing no part" while theistic
evolution is the same "except that
God supernaturally intervened in the origin of life and/or the origin
of humans."
In my definitions, theistic
evolution can include theistic guidance of natural process (so
I don't agree that it means "God playing no
part") but does not include supernatural interventions, although
a person could be an evolutionary creationist for the development of
life (in biological evolution) but not for the origin of life (by chemical
evolution) or the origin of humans.
note: I'm
not sure
what Jones means by "working
(both naturally and supernaturally) through natural processes" so I'll
ask him about this. I think what he is describing is similar to my
own view by proposing that, during the process of creation, God used actions
that
were
both natural-appearing (as in the views of Russel, Ruest, and others) and miraculous-appearing.
In my "Similarities
and Differences" page, the views of Gordon Mills are
featured in two sections: "Can we be scientifically certain?" and "Can
we be theologically certain?" Here
is some additional information and comments:
Gordon Mills has changed the term
he uses to describe his own view. In 1995, he proposed
a Theory
of Theistic Evolution as an Alternative to the Naturalistic Theory: "I
propose the following as a theory of theistic evolution: that in the history
of the origin and development of living organisms, at various levels of organization,
there has been a continuing provision of new genetic information by an intelligent
cause. For a theist, that intelligent cause is God." But
in 2002 he acknowledged that "these views are no
longer in accord with what others are calling 'Theistic Evolution', and appear
to be more appropriately described as a 'Design Theory of Progressive Creation'." He
says "no longer in accord" but his views
were basically the same in 1995 and 2002, only his term had changed.
Mills thinks a full common
descent is possible, but not necessary: "A monophyletic
origin of life is a possible component, but is clearly not mandatory to
my view of theistic evolution. Likewise, the role of ancestral descent
(sometimes referred to as genealogical continuity) is not nearly as essential
to my view. ... In my theory of theistic evolution, consideration
of ancestral relationships would include the possibility of new genetic
information provided by an intelligent cause." In 1998a he
asks scientific questions about full common descent from a monophyletic
(rather
than polyphyletic) beginning,
and generally he seems to think that
the observed evolutionary descent(s) could not occur unless there was intelligently
designed input of
information.
He never explicitly rejects
the possibility of independent creations, but he does propose creations
by genetic modification: "Many writers assume
that a Creator would use only fiat creation, i.e., creating entire organisms. However,
there is no reason to limit the creative activity of a Creator to fiat
creation. In some cases, the jumps necessary to bridge gaps in
phylogenetic relationships might be brought about by relatively small
changes in chromosomal DNA, particularly with changes in developmental
genes. Unless one can make probability estimates for the possibility
of these changes, it may be nearly impossible to know which changes were
a consequence of chance mutations and which were due to modifications
by a designer. (Mills 2002)" And he says, "My
view of theistic evolution would not contradict their proposal [by Eldredge
and Gould] of punctuated equilibrium, but would add one possible explanation
for the sudden appearance of new life forms when these new forms required
new genetic information. (Mills 1995)"
Mills has written a series
of papers for the ASA journal,
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.
Similarities and Differences between
Old-Earth Views:
Progressive Creation & Evolutionary Creation
for sections with Stephen Jones
for sections with Gordon Mills
this page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/jonesmills.htm