Loren describes three versions of YEC -- I find the distinction between
"appearance of youth" and "created with apparent age" especially useful.
His 2a-2c are Progressive Creation (PC) with varying amounts and types
of micro-E (by MIRM) and macro-E (by TA); TA could have been "special
creation of each lifeform" (so without a family lineage there wouldn't
necessarily be any continuity in DNA) or "miraculous genetic
transformations" that would maintain the appearance of genetic continuity
and the "descent" that is observed in so many evolutionary studies. {for
scientific reasons, I prefer the latter, with genetic transformations of
existing DNA, rather than each new species [or family,...] being specially
created from scratch; there are also theological reasons to prefer this, if
there is any analogy between human history [as described in the Bible] and
natural history}
Loren has many categories for Theistic and Deistic Evolution:
3a. Theistic Evolution with Special Creation of Life
3b. Theistic Evolution
3b1. Theistic Evolution with Designed Outcome
3b2. Theistic Evolution with Determined Outcome
3b3. Theistic Evolution with Flexible Outcome
3c. Theistic Evolution Known only through Special Revelation
4. Deistic Evolution
In 3b1 and 3b2, God prefers one outcome over another, but 3b1 seems to
be deistic (God designs and sustains the natural laws, but with no TA
because MIRM can accomplish everything), while with 3b2 what appears to be
100%-MIRM is actually 100%-STA.
In 3b3, God sets an "approximate" goal and then lets nature run
according to MIRM, deistically waiting to see what will occur, knowing that
this will be "close enough" to the goal for it to be satisfactory.
In 3a (during organic evolution, after the miraculous origin of life),
3c, and 4, there doesn't appear to be a "goal" or TA, and these processes
seem to be deistic evolution (DE), not theistic evolution (TE).
According to my analysis that (as explained in the "theistic/deistic
definitions" post) does not assume predestination (which would make GSC
automatically equal to TA), only 3b2 (which invokes predestination with
God's total control?) seems to be theistic rather than deistic.
Yet all of these are called theistic evolution. So here is my question:
If a theist believes in a totally-MIRM evolution (which I consider DE),
does this automatically convert it into TE?
or, "deistic E --(converted by process of belief by theist)--> theistic E"
This would be consistent with Allan's recent correction to my erroneous
use of "cannot" when I should have said "did not" -- because it is possible
for a theist to believe in deistic evolution (totally natural, 100% MIRM)
if he/she believes that God does exert theistic action in other parts of
the history of the universe, especially in human life.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this transformation (from DE to TE)
seems to be the foundation for Howard Van Till's concept of Functional
Integrity (FI) -- that God does TA in human history (as exemplified in the
Bible) but there is no TA in natural history because the universe was so
well designed (with built-in FI) that it wasn't necessary, so "secondary
causes" (MIRM) could accomplish everything that God wanted.
Or, expressed differently, with FI there can be TA (or MIRM) in the
"human history" part of nature, but only MIRM (and no TA) in other parts of
nature.
With FI and only-MIRM evolution, it seems to me that this can be called
TE only if "DE --(belief by theist)--> TE".
Or perhaps "DE --(inclusion in a theistic theological framework)--> TE".
Or maybe if SCG is defined as TA, as discussed in my T/D #2 post, then
DE can become TE?
********************************************
a question, re: divine teleology and MIRM
If God wanted humans to have certain characteristics (mental, emotional,
physical,...), could MIRM-deistic evolution accomplish this? { For
example, consider the "Wonderful Life" historical-contingency theory of
Gould. }
And, of course, the issue of "human evolution" isn't explicitly
addressed in the discussion (with Loren's definitions, and my comments)
above. { When I began on this list, I saw the end of what appeared to be
an interesting discussion of human evolution. }
In a recent post, Allan asked "why should we have different attitudes
toward thunder and evolution?" Of course, this question is even more
relevant for the sensitive area of human evolution.
**************************************************
An alternative to Loren's categories is to view MIRM, STA and MTA on a
continuum. An atheist/deist *must* believe 100%-MIRM, while a theist could
believe that MIRM is anywhere from 0% to 100%, with varying balances
between the relative amounts (and types, as in the two types of PC
described above) of STA and MTA, and in subjectively deciding between MIRM
and STA.
To describe different views, one could adjust these 3 levels, sort of
like the vertical slide-bars on a "3-channel equalizer" for a stereo set.
Craig Rusbult