Please excuse the slow reply. I realize I must try to keep up on the timing of this thread otherwise the relevance factor will be lost. Since I am operating at 7-12 hours difference on the time-zones than American contributors, this makes ‘real time’ dialogue a challenge. And since I was the initiator of this thread, following the lead of David Campbell’s question, I feel a responsibility to try to keep the dialogue flowing with thoughts behind why I chose to post this thread (OP) in the first place. (And it happens that I have two deadlines tonight and another tomorrow morning to meet, but I guess sleep doesn’t matter sometimes because this topic of ‘what exactly is a TE?’ has been waiting in the wings at ASA for some time.)
To the topic:
Merv has shared the response he got from Keith Miller, the editor of PoEC, which was referred in the OP of this thread as the (or a) text for TEs. No one has cited another text that is definitive for the TE position, so unless someone points us to one, shall I assume PoEC is the best available volume?
Merv writes: “While the TE label has reached popular and common usage, he [Keith] (& I think he included others who authored essays in that text) preferred ‘evolutionary creationist’ because the term ‘evolutionist’ carries the implication that a person has an ideological commitment to Evolution.”
Yes, so now we have to question whether or not TE is so popular and common, at least when counting people’s views at ASA. Indeed, I would contend exactly this as Merv writes, that an evolutionist, that is, any type of evolutionist, including theistic or theological evolutionists, have ‘an ideological commitment to Evolution.’ If anyone would argue this point, please could they explain why or how an evolutionist does not/need not have ‘an ideological commitment to Evolution.’
Merv notes that Keith&co. are “scientists who merely accept evolution as the best scientific theory of origins,” but let me then ask Merv if he thinks evolution is really about ‘origins’ or if it is rather about ‘processes’ of change. Since this thread is asking what a label means and the persons who may or may not wish to take it for themselves, we must be as clear as possible with our language. Is ‘theistic evolution’ about origins (that is, if creation itself presumably came before any biological or cosmological process, in terms of priority)? Is it trying to stick together origins and processes? Or is TE mainly about processes described/explained by the theory of biological evolution? Merv continues that Keith&co. i.e. ECs, hold “no a-priori commitment to ‘evolutionism’,” which I find encouraging and an important acknowledgement to make. By implication, TEs do indeed have an “a-priori commitment to evolutionism”; this is precisely what I have been getting on about in
bringing this thread into view.
Merv adds that “the acceptance of the term ‘evolutionist’ for oneself may often also imply a welcoming of the warfare mode of thought between science and Christianity,” and we know that most people at ASA are firmly against the warfare mode of thought, even in just attending and participating in ASA. So, most people at ASA according to this definition would not appreciate being labelled as TEs.
Keith Miller did indeed contribute to this thread, following Merv’s post. He writes: “By evolution I mean the theory that all living things on Earth are descended from a common ancestor through a continuity of cause-and effect processes.” I would agree with and support this definition, drawing particular attention to the notion that ‘evolution’ is about ‘processes.’ However, when it comes to the statement, “all transitions in the history of life are potentially explicable in terms of "natural" cause-and-effect processes,” I wonder if Keith means to include human decision-making or, for example, technological development as being something ‘natural.’ Would he consider leaving space for some things to be called ‘non-natural’ or at least be open to a categorical ordering that does not privilege ‘nature’ as being somehow ahead of or above ‘society’ or ‘culture’ so that some ‘non-natural’ things can be said not to ‘evolve’ but rather to change in another way (that is, not
according to evolutionist ideology)? If so, then he and I could find a common ground of agreement wherein the ‘history of life’ could implicate the ‘human factor’ more deeply with the scientific method.
Keith continues: “Evolutionary theory is no mere guess or hunch, but an extremely well supported explanation of the observed record of organic change. It has great explanatory power in drawing together an incredibly wide range of data from many disciplines in an explanatory framework. It has been very effective in generating fruitful and testable hypotheses that have driven new discoveries and advanced our scientific understanding of the history and dynamics of our living world.”
Yes, I find this to be acceptable also. Evolution draws together many disciplines, provides an explanatory framework, generates fruitful and testable hypotheses and has led to discoveries, and, most importantly for my studies, evolution is about ‘organic change.’ If this is granted as acceptable, then ‘super-organic change’ a term used by the anthropologist A.L. Kroeber (e.g. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 19, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1917), pp. 163-213), can be considered outside the paradigm of evolution. For most TEs, whose theology is intimately attached to evolution as the ‘truth of natural history,’ and something not to be questioned, the notion that anything can be considered outside the paradigm of evolution is likely very difficult to entertain.
Keith clarifies his position by saying, “I prefer the term ‘Continuous Creation’ far more than ‘Theistic Evolution.’ The latter term puts the emphasis on a particular scientific theory rather than on theology, and is burdened with a lot of baggage. The critical issue in my mind is that God's creative action is in and through natural process -- this seem clear from scripture.”
Who would argue with Keith Miller to suggest that ‘evolution’ is not “burdened with a lot of baggage?” Keith appeals to the authority of Jurgen Moltman in regard to ‘continuous creation,’ which need not be given up by situating the term evolution as the qualifying term to creation – i.e. EC. “I fully and unhesitatingly accept the doctrine of creation. God is the Creator of all things and nothing would exist without God's continually willing it to be.” Keith forthrightly acknowledges Warfield and Orr as people that looked for Divine action through natural processes, which he (if I understand him correctly) believes it is the proper business of science to do.
Where I would challenge Keith is on the difference(s) between origins and processes. He writes, “Since God acts through process, evolution and the theology of creation are perfectly compatible.” I would add that G-D also acts through origins, and therefore a theology of creation that is concerned with origins (i.e. even looking to origins ahead of processes, unlike ‘process theology’) is also perfectly compatible. “Understanding what those natural processes are [is] the task of science,” Keith writes. This is certainly agreeable as a (read: one among many) principle of science. I would hasten to add that origins should not be forgotten in this appeal to ‘science is about processes’ because as a philosophically-minded social theorist, I refrain from giving such power of category to ‘process’ ahead of ‘origin.’ First origins, then processes; without origins no process would ever come to be.
If it is a common preference to accept the label of ‘evolutionary creationist’ then I will adjust my views and re-consider using the label EC to describe the position of persons such as Terry Gray and George Murphy, that is, if they would approve and if they are willing to no longer be evolutionists (because they probably never were in the first place!). It is enough for me to know that they have “no a-priori commitment to ‘evolutionism’” because that will make it easier for me to succeed in making the point I have been trying to make for several months here at ASA: ‘evolutionary theory’ makes no sense in any social-humanitarian science or scholarly field because it involves human volition, intention, purpose, goals, and decision-making, that is, things which biological evolution does not. Now I will thus take this view a step further to contend that since theology is about ‘faith seeking understanding’ or about learning about and trying to understand our (co-)Creator,
which inevitably involves human beings making reflexive thoughts, that is, reflecting their imago Dei in the world and beyond it, that it makes no sense to invoke evolutionism in theology. But to say this probably wild-looking statement is to be getting ahead of this thread, which is right now about discerning people’s views about ‘what exactly is a TE?’
Terry Gray adds his voice, “For most of us on this list Denis [Lamoureux]'s evolutionary creation is synonymous with what is commonly denoted theistic evolution. I think that if push comes to shove, all of us here prefer the moniker ‘evolutionary creation’ to ‘theistic evolution’ because the noun is ‘creation’ where we all want the stress to be.”
Terry also notes that D. Lamoureux learned about EC from ASA, so let me clarify that I am not attributing the coining of the label ‘evolutionary creationist’ to him, rather simply noting that he has a paper called ‘evolutionary creation’ on his webpage and that he accepts evolutionary biology safely without being an evolutionist or ‘special creationist’. For whatever reason, he seems to be having trouble finding a publisher for his current book which includes the word ‘evangelical,’ so it might be helpful for someone who knows Denis better than I to share the nuances of his position. It could be that his scientific views of origins have been swallowed up by ‘process philosophy’ (that great whale), however I would not actually make that contention.
In regard to the idea of ‘continuous creation,’ Terry cautions us with the following: “in the history of ideas (in some circles) ‘continuous creation’ means that everything is created from scratch every moment. Continuity of being is an illusion. Most orthodox Christian theologians have argued that this is defective view of creation.” Indeed, this is exactly the point I wish to make when I refuse to privilege processes over origins. Please don’t misread me, however, as saying that only origins are important or that processes are unimportant. I am saying neither such thing. Only that a balance should be sought whereby both processes and origins can be represented for what they are and how they occur, rather than allowing the dominance of process thought through the ideology of evolutionism. This is an important reason why I would challenge the label TE and why I, following the question put by David, started this thread. I appreciate the care that Terry gives (even to
semantics!) and would not call him a concordist, especially if he is thinking as a Dooyeweerdian as occasionally also do I. What a breath of fresh air it is friends, to read about ‘things that don’t evolve’ at ASA! Thanks Terry.
I interpret A. Moorad’s question about “Where does the Fall of Man fit in?” to be a specific challenge both to TEs and ECs and to processes that disqualify crucial moments, to which Dick Fisher responded “About 7,000 years ago, plus or minus a few hundred. Remember Eve?” Perhaps this gives comfort to know that yes, indeed, there still is space for the perspective that Adam and Eve, two human persons (and not just figurative parts of a non-literal story) existed, really, in flesh and blood, heart and limbs (and maybe belly button :-> ), and that such a perspective can be held by ‘practising scientists’ without them being automatically, mechanistically, reactively labelled as a ‘special creationist.’ Terry notes his belief that G-D created every human soul directly. But this does not mean he is a ‘special creationist’ or ‘creation scientist’ and it leaves respective space for G-D directly creating the souls of Adam and Eve that could have been historically fused with real
human bodies (i.e. embodied)...without requiring the label of ‘concordist.’ Moorad adds: “I presume by ‘cause and effect processes’ one means natural events and processes; therefore, God is not involved.” … “I do not understand how in the natural process of evolution, hominids even those with free choice and self-awareness became aware of God's requirements.” However, answering to this would take us off-track because it would mean defining ‘natural’ (as opposed or not opposed to theological or theistic) and serve to question the purposes and limits of natural science (e.g. via the realm of anthropology) to speak about what may or may not ‘evolve.’ It is of course not on the agenda to ask ‘who is a better physicist, George or Alexenian?’ but to note that as both physicists they have different views about evolutionary theories and their place in biology, cosmology, physics and theology and that they are both Christians.
Dave Siemens contributes the view that, “recent OEC (like Hugh Ross) and adherents to gap theory do not seem to have a problem with cosmological evolution,” in contradistinction to biological evolution. He notes that some versions of TE (or is it really EC?) “are attempts to eliminate the problems of the origin of life and the image of God in man,” while noting however that some people “disdain such additions to [the] science.” I’m not exactly sure what point Dave is getting at with bringing up cosmological evolution, though I value his mentioning another type of evolution than biological evolution because it shows there is no single, monolithic evolutionary theory, but rather ‘theories of evolution’ as John Paul II noted over a decade ago. Dave’s philosophical approach likely acknowledges that the ‘philosophy of evolution’ is just as important, if not more important, than the ‘biology of evolution’.
Don Nield contributes as follows: “The E in TE refers to Evolution in its scientific sense. It includes cosmological evolution and biological evolution and also those aspects of cultural revolution that are scientific -- it does not include the non-scientific extensions made by some sociologists such as Herbert Spencer… [and that other guy].”
I have several questions about this post: 1) Is Don’s point simply that ‘evolution IS science/scientific,’ end of story, and thus therefore speaking tautologically the ‘E in TE… [is meant in a] scientific sense’? 2) Why ‘revolution’ when speaking of culture? 3) How can cosmological and biological evolution be thought as ‘under the umbrella’ of TE – isn’t this taking the extreme position of Teillhard de Chardin, that is, over-reaching a grand unified theory into areas about which one might know very little? 4) Herbert Spencer used the term ‘evolution’ before Darwin published OoS, thus how could his work be considered a ‘non-scientific extension’ of (I assume Don means) Darwinian evolutionary theory? 5) Finally, does anything an engineer ever ‘make/build/design/construct/etc.’ count as something that ‘has evolved’ (into being or having become)? From my pov, engineers do exactly that, they engineer, that is, they quite clearly do not ‘evolve’ things. To speak in such a
language as ‘evolution’ for an engineer makes no sense; however, when engineers are trying their hand in biology, then speaking in evolutionary language may be suitable.
George Murphy writes: TE “is simply the view that biological macroevolution has taken place & that God has been involved in the process.” … “I am a Christian who thinks that biological evolution has happened and that part of the creative activity of the Trinity takes place through the evolutionary process.”
First, I wonder why George didn’t suggest that TE is the view that micro-evolution has taken and takes place because there are fewer disputes about micro-evolution’s actual occurrence, which I for one do not doubt, than there are about macro-evolution. Second, is that what TE is supposedly about, i.e. simply confirming that ‘biological evolution has happened’ rather than finding a way to understand the Trinity’s creative activity? If all broad-minded theologians ultimately must carry within their sphere of interest some kind of philosophy of biology (i.e. biological evolution HAS happened, the ontological claim), then on the other hand must not all broad-minded biologists carry within their sphere of interest some kind of philosophy of theology (i.e. G-D has created, is creating, continues to create through human beings who are created imago Dei)? I would applaud such an appeal to holistic knowledge (e.g. think Dooyeweerdian again), yet might wonder if we should not also
consult culturologists, psychologists and anthropologists, in addition to physicists and biologists, in order to be a little more even-handed.
The notion of ‘[TE] isn’t going to go away’ is simply unhelpful, especially coming from a person who calls himself a TE! Merv admits that the label ‘TE’ “has reached popular and common usage” but also that Keith prefers ‘evolutionary creationist’ due to ideological reasons. So please, George, do not put unnecessary restraints on the possibility that another ‘label’ *might* be found or used that explains a popular position better than another and that in principle *could* thus erase TE as improper or that it could become no longer statistically significant in use. If George wishes to be called a TE rather than an EC, then he should explain why he prefers the former term.
George warns us not to assume TE’s hold “some maximal view of the importance or scope of evolution like that of process theology.” This warning should likely be reserved for another thread that deals specifically with ‘process theology’ because that is certainly a related but in many ways bigger topic of discussion. I have personally charged A.N. Whitehead for much of the confusion wrt the ideology of evolutionism via his over-prioritization of ‘process’ thought. The Russian-American sociologist P. Sorokin certainly exposed this type of approach as damaging to an ideational or eternal perspective, i.e. to religious perspectives, because it presumes ‘everything changes’ (when in fact it doesn’t, at least not in relative conditions) and will not admit of anything unchanging (or un-evolving, as according to evolutionists, who are by definition as above, a-priori committed to ideology).
So let it be clear that I imply no hostility when asking ‘what exactly is a TE?’ but still wonder if it makes sense given that the priority is placed on evolutionism rather than on theology or on Creation/creationism. Personally, I have not been use the term TE as a scientist/scholar who is hostile to evolution, but rather because it is what people have called themselves in conversation with me. David Campbell’s original statement that category 2 TE’s are “Someone who seeks to revise theology to conform to a purportedly more evolutionary mold,” thus would be an adequate description of a person who in the scheme of academic disciplines elevates Biology far out of proportion to others. That is, biological evolution is a fact, fact, fact, but this does not mean that evolutionary theory deserves any measure of respect in culturology (yes, this is a foreign word to most American scholars, but has a long tradition elsewhere) or in social-humanitarian disciplines which make up a
significant part of the contemporary academy. So it seems now I should prefer the label EC when speaking to a majority at ASA, even in light of the poll taken in response to D. Alexander’s presentation in Edinburgh.
Gregory
“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.”
- The Riddle of Strider
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 3 13:17:01 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 03 2007 - 13:17:01 EDT