George Murphy wrote:
> >
> > BC: In special revelation, God is constantly helping the weak, lifting up the poor, deposing the
>
> > lofty. He often chooses those that seem most unfit, and therefore unexpected. He shows grace
> > to those who do not deserve it. This mode of operation is directly contrary to that of
> > Darwinian evolution, where the fittest are rewarded and the weakest are exterminated. There is
> > no such thing as 'grace' in the Darwinian system, where rewards are based solely on merit. The
> > line of the Messiah is 'contaminated' with Gentiles like Ruth and Rahab. The Beatitudes and
> > the Sermon on the Mount extol the anti-Darwinian moral character, "blessed are the meek, turn
> > the other cheek, give to him who asks", etc. It is quite safe to say that Christianity is
> > completely antithetically to social Darwinism. Anyone who claims to find social Darwinism in
> > God's actions described in special revelation is practicing eisegesis.
>
> Your analysis would be correct if natural selection were a matter of individuals
> trying to "merit" survival by defeating enemies. In fact it's a matter of populations
> being "selected" (note quotes) by environments, including unforseeable environmental
> catastrophes. Gould has done a good job of emphasizing this.
Whether it is individuals or populations, natural selection is not grace-based. Who survives? The
strong. Of course the environment selects, but it doesn't select willy nilly; it selects the strong.
Divine grace, however, historically selected the weak, the foolish, the undeserving, etc. This point
is so obvious that it needs no defending.
> Theologically, the significant thing about the evolutionary process is that life
> develops out of conditions of privation, competition, & death - which of course is not
> the way the conventional beneficent God of philosophical theism is supposed to work, &
> why the process creates theodicy dilemmas for such theism. It is, however, coherent
> with the character of the biblical God who creates life out of death (Exodus, exile &
> return, justification of the ungodly), all centered on new creation out of God's own
> participation in death. OTOH this is not a matter of God or believers simply being the
> "fittest" who "survive" because God Incarnate gets killed along with the "losers" in the
> process & is risen.
With that last statement you show that there is no essential relation between mutation/natural
selection and God's modus operandi viz-a-viz salvation history. With evolution the weak die and the
strong survive; in redemptive history, the weak suffer and then the strong are brought down and the
weak eventually triumph with divine aid. I never claimed that natural selection is not coherent with
the character of the biblical God (nor did I claim that it is coherent). My point was that God's
character as described in the Bible does not *support* His forming life by natural selection. That
is because the character of God as described in the Bible is just as consistent with many other ways
of creating, including de novo creation. (That is plain just from the fact that *something* had to
be created de novo; therefore His character cannot be incompatible with de novo creation per se.)
Therefore, the claim that the Bible presents a picture of God's character that *supports* evolution
by natural selection is ludicrous. "Compatible with" means "supportive of" only if no other creation
options are "compatible with" the character of God as presented in Scripture. Since many other
creation-methods are compatible with the character of God as presented in Scripture, therefore the
character of God as presented in Scripture does not *support* evolution by natural selection.
> The fact that natural selection is a major factor in evolution doesn't mean that
> that's where we're to get our ethics. This is just one more example of the toxic
> effects of independent natural theology.
Just for the record, I did not claim that we are to get our ethics from natural selection.
> > > > > I suggest that just as God, who began the process of natural history,
> > > > > occasionally intervened in it for the higher purpose of salvation as
> > > > > recorded in Scripture, so he will occasionally make exceptions to the
> > > > > natural laws and processes he has instituted. The exceptions justify the
> > > > > rule, and both the rule and the exceptions glorify the Ruler.
> > > >
> > > > Many of the miracles of salvation history, & especially those of the NT, serve
> > > > to point to Jesus as the presence of the God who works all the time through natural
> > > > processes in nature - cf. the use of "sign" (semeion) to describe them & C.S. Lewis's
> > > > emphasis in _Miracles_. What would be the corresponding sign value of, e.g., miraculous
> > > > intervention to create life (something which, in addition, the Bible gives us no reason
> > > > to posit)?
> >
> > Its amazing how God is hamstrung by a priori theology. The claim is that he can't
> > supernaturally intervene in nature unless it is part of redemptive history and thereby points
> > to Christ. How do you know that God's only supernatural direct action was in redemptive
> > history? Just because it would seem useless to you? Just because the only supernatural direct
> > actions you are aware of are recorded in redemptive history? Those are poor reasons, and they
> > just beg the question. Furthermore, if each of the miracles in the OT point to Christ, then
> > why assume that any miracle that wasn't explicitly written down in special revelation does not
> > point to Christ?
> First, someone who has previously affirmed belief in divine immutability is not
> in a good position to criticize anyone else for a priori theology.
That claim is not necessarily true, for it would be true only if the person in question arrived at
his belief in divine immutability by way of a priori theology. Since you did not ask me how I
arrived at my belief in divine immutability, you are not in a position to make this judgment.
> Second, I never said or will say that miracles can occur only in salvation
> history. The whole separation of a separate realm of phenomena in the world as
> "history", & of a separate realm of history as "salvation history" seems questionable to
> me. What I pointed out is that the nature miracles in the NT function, _inter alia_, as
> signs to point out the presence of the creator who operates all the time in the world
> through natural processes, & that a miraculous creation of life in general would not
> play that role. That doesn't prove that it couldn't have happened
> Third, I didn't simply say that the NT miracles "point to Christ" but that they
> "point to Jesus as the presence of the God who works all the time through natural
> processes in nature." The difference is non-trivial.
But you started your sentence with "Many of the miracles of salvation history, & especially those of
the NT", implying that at least some of these were OT miracles. If any OT miracles point to Jesus,
then why not all OT miracles? You asked the question, "What would be the corresponding sign value
of, e.g., miraculous intervention to create life . . . ?" By asking this question you seem to admit
that miracles in redemptive history have sign value, while miracles outside of redemptive history
would not. But just above you rejected the notion of a separate realm of "salvation history", so it
seems that you have no principle reason to deny sign value to any miracle. The sign value of the
miraculous intervention to create life (should it have occurred that) would be the same as that of
any comparable OT miracle, or NT miracle for that matter.
> Finally, there is no reason at all on the basis of special revelation to think
> that the origin of life took place in a way which cannot be understood in terms of
> natural processes. As I have pointed out repeatedly, Genesis 1 points in just the
> opposite direction.
This is an argument from silence, for one can just as easily say that there is no reason at all on
the basis of special revelation to think that the origin of life took place in a way which cannot be
understood in terms of supernatural processes. With respect to Genesis 1, the Bible does not say
"this event occurred within the bounds of natural laws" or "this event exceeded the limits of
natural laws". As long as the Biblical evidence can be used to support equally either of two
contrary opinions, it supports neither. Whether one interprets the events of Genesis 1 as miracles
or not will depend upon what one believes about what can and cannot occur by natural processes.
Since in this regard the interpretation depends upon what scientific evidence the exegete brings to
the text, the text itself does not answer the question. We should not attempt to substantiate a
claim with an appeal to special revelation when special revelation provides no support for that
claim, or is equally compatible with the claim and its contrary.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 01:48:09 EDT