***************************************************
Keith Miller says (in the "theism and science" thread)
>I don't think God cares much about apologetics!
Paul seemed to care. (in his discussion/reasonings with Jews and Greeks)
>It
>seems to me our science should strive to know what is actually true about
>creation and creation history, and our theology should strive to know what
>is true of God - whether that truth is convenient or not.
You've just restated the main argument of ID -- that if a central goal
of science is to "strive to know what is actually true about creation and
creation history", then limiting science to MN is limiting its options for
striving to know the truth.
For example, as expressed by Paul Nelson,
> Why? What could one hope to gain by having a *smaller* box of possible
> causes into which to reach, when confronted with the patterns of nature?
Of course (as you point out, Keith), the truth may or may not involve
intelligent design or Darwinian evolution. And either of these
possibilities would be consistent with Biblical theology and theism.
Back to Keith's message,
>lives lived with integrity and Christ-likeness. That is our real apologetic.
This is what God wants from us, as emphasized over & over in the Bible.
>I also assume by this response that you are unwilling to state clearly and
>categorically that orthodox Christian theism _does not_ necessitate God's
>scientifically detectable action ("fingerprints")in creation.
I agree with you here, Keith. I think this is theologically sound, and
should be stated clearly by ID proponents. {unless an ID proponent
disagrees with it, and then this should be clearly stated.
>>This leads me to offer a counter-admonition, in the form of a question.
>>Are you sure that thestic evolutionists have been careful not to give the
>>impression that God is *forbidden* to "intervene" (i.e., do anything more
>>than watch from a distance) in the course of evolutionary history?
Yes, this implication seems very strong in most "theistic" evolution
explanations, but to me this seems like *deistic* (not theistic) evolution.
And if you believe that evolution is truly theistic (involving
"theistic action" beyond "sustaining"), then this should be stated clearly.
(if it's good advice for Phil, then it's also good for TE-proponents)
>A Biblical understanding of God's providential action in
>creation could not be farther from "watching from a distance." If you
>understand God's action through secondary cause-and-effect processes in
>this way, then there is indeed a major theological problem. God is in
>complete control of _all_ natural processes and in all events in human
>history.
These issues are being discussed in the "classification scheme" thread,
where I question whether "sustaining" (or "secondary processes", which I
assume are similar?)
>It has been emphatically stated by "theistic evolutionists" that God is
>free to do whatever is consistent with His character.
And willing? God *promises* to be "theistically active" in his
creation (specifically, in the hearts and minds of believers) -- in John
16, and in many other places in the Bible. (including the Old Testament)
*************************************************************
George Murphy says,
> & I, as a Christian "methodological naturalist" struggle to
>understand why Christian ID proponents cannot see that that there may be
>significant _theological_ arguments for MN.
and
>The idea that God voluntarily limits his action
>to what can be accomplished through natural processes (which are God's
>creation) is what Barbour (_Religion in an Age of Science_) calls a
>"kenotic" view of divine action, & it seems to me that it can be firmly
>grounded in a theology of the cross.
Some important issues should be kept distinct, rather than "linked".
For example, a believer in "theistic action" (of the type discussed in
the "classification schemes" thread) could also believe in MN (based on
arguments for scientific utility or philosophy) and also in theistic
evolution (or even totally deistic evolution) if this is where the evidence
points.
Although it seems theologically possible for God to "voluntarily limit
his action" in the domains claimed by prebiotic evolution or organic
evolution, I don't think this voluntary limitation is possible (according
to the Bible) in the lives of people. (and this is my main theme in the
"c-schemes" thread)
Thus there are (at least) three questions:
Did evolution (from lifeless chemicals to us) actually occur by purely
natural means?
Should a theory of ID (or that "God did it") be considered a legitimate
part of science, or part of a larger "no-holds-barred SEARCH FOR TRUTH"
that includes science and more?
What are the possible (and usual) modes of "theistic action" in the
area where it is most important for us (and for God) -- in relationships
between God and humans, and between humans and humans?
Despite a few constraints on logical consistency, it is possible to
have many different combinations of "views in these 3 areas" that are
logically compatible and theologically sound.
Most of us are irritated by yeC claims that link a young earth with the
Gospel -- if you don't believe yeC then you can't really believe the Gospel
-- and we should be careful that we don't fall into some of the same
logical (or rhetorical) traps.
Flexibility is possible, and allowing for it (especially in others, to
avoid strawman charicatures) is beneficial. But (as stated above, and in
my early-last-weekend agreements with Allan Harvey and others) it is also
very important to clarify one's views in each of these areas, to avoid the
need for readers/hearers to "fill in the blanks" (which we will do, because
it's part of our cognitive mechanisms for making sense of our environment)
in ways that may not be what is intended.
It is also important -- as emphasized by ID proponents -- to be precise
about what the claims are, and what evidence is being used in support of
these claims. For example, Mike Behe does an excellent job of clarifying
what is and isn't being claimed (and how this differs from earlier claims
for design, such as those made by Paley) or what it might be possible to
claim, in the final two chapters of DBB. (two specific places are pages
229-231 & 241-243) Another example (and there are others, too) is J.P.
Moreland's distinctions between different types of "evidence for design"
(on pages 24-25 of "The Creation Hypothesis").
Craig R
http://labweb.soemadison.wisc.edu/users/rusbult/ "Science and Design:
Methods for Using Creativity and Critical Thinking in Problem Solving"