On Wed, 07 Jun 1995 13:17:11 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
>In an excellent post, Stephen Jones asked this question:
SJ>The question is not whether "Evolution is a scientific theory", but
>whether or not it is *inherently* an anti-theistic theory.
>
LH>The counter-question which immediately comes to my mind is:
>"Is Newton's theory of planetary motion *inherently* an
>anti-theistic theory?"
I do not consider normal scientific theories "*inherently*
..anti-theistic theory". My point (or rather question) was more that
the *idea* of "evolution" is "inherently..anti-theistic".
"Evolution" comes from the Latin evolvere "to unroll" (Gould S.J.,
"Ever Since Darwin", 1977, Pelican, p35). Carl F.H. Henry sees it as
fundamentally Greek, as opposed to Hebrew thinking:
"The fundamental contrast between the Hebrew-Christian doctrine of
creation and the Greek-modern doctrine of evolution is therefore
crystal-clear. The Genesis creation account depicts a personal
supernatural agent calling into existence graded levels of life by
transcendent power. The Greek-modern theory depicts a simple
primitive reality temporarily differentiated by immanent activity into
increasingly complex entities that retain this capacity for future
development." (Henry C.F.H., "Science and Religion", in Henry C.F.H.,
ed., "Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey", 1968, Baker,
p252).
Henry also believes that theists, in attempting to reconcile evolution
with creation, must be aware that the terminology (and hence the
concepts) arein the control of science, not theology:
"The terminology of debate today is largely fixed not by the
theological endeavour but by the scientific enterprise, especially by
the secular philosophy of science which today hold the ideological
initiative" (Henry, p252).
LH>or alternatively:
>"Is LaPlace's solution to Newton's equations, which proved that
>God does not need to occasionally re-adjust planetary orbits in
>order to keep them stable, inherently anti-theistic?"
No. See above. At that level bringing God into the equations is not
necessary. A theist would see the equations themselves as an
outworking of God's providential government.
LH>You partially answered these questions further on in your post,
>when you implied that it is not "functioning according to natural
>law" which makes a theory anti-theistic, but rather a reliance upon
>_chance_ rather than_design_.
I don't know that that is exactly what I said. To claim that natural
law is the ultimate reality (ie. not needing a Lawgiver) is
anti-theistic.
Chance itself is OK if it simply means our ignorance. If we think
chance is a thing in itself which accomplishes anything, we are not
only being anti-theistic, we are being irrational:
"Chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally,
consummately impotent...chance has no power to do anything because it
simply is not anything. It has no power because it has no being...
Chance is not an entity.It is not a thing that has power to affect
other things. It is no thing. To be more precise, it is *nothing*.
Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has no `isness'.
Chance has no isness. I was technically correct even to say that
chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not." (Sproul R.C.,
"Not a Chance", 1994, Baker, Grand Rapids MI, p6)
SJ>A subsidiary question is whether Darwin had been a committed
>Biblical theist, whether he would have formulated his theory in a
>different way that would have still accounted for the facts, but would
>not have contained its "anti-religious flavour" as Thompson noted:
>"The doctrine of evolution by natural selection as Darwin formulated,
>and as his followers still explain it, has a strong anti-religious
>flavour. This is due to the fact that the intricate adaptations and
>co-ordinations we see in living things naturally evoking the idea of
>finality and design and, therefore of an intelligent providence, are
>explained, with what seems to be a rigorous argument, as the result of
>chance. It may be said, and the most orthodox theologians indeed
>hold, that God controls and guides even the events due to chance- but
>this proposition the Darwinians emphatically reject, and it is clear
>that in the Origin evolution is presented as an essentially undirected
>process. For the majority of its readers, therefore, the Origin
>effectively dissipated the evidence of providential control."
>(Thompson W.R., "Introduction", Darwin C., "The Origin of Species",
>Everyman's Library, 1967, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, p.xxiii)
>
LH>But this raises another question in my mind:
>Consider an evolving proto-star. This system is "chaotic," like the
>weather. Given our best knowledge of the state of a proto-star, it is
>impossible for us to predict what sort of planetary system it will
>eventually produce; the final outcome depends sensitively on the
>gravitational attraction of objects half a universe away. "Chance" -- at
>the level of chaos and (it would seem necessarily) at the level of quantum
>mechanics -- plays a roll in determining what kind of planetary system
>eventually evolves.
No. As a theist, I reject that there is such a thing as chance, in
"quantum physics" or elsewhere. No doubt we humans do not know where
sub-atomic particles are at any particular instant, nor how they seem
to move instantly from one state and position to another, but that is
a reflection of our ignorance, not a true statement about ultimate
reality:
Pr 16:33 "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from
the LORD."
LH>So it is impossible to predict if any given proto-star will evolve
>a planet of suitable size and position to support life; however,
>given an ensemble of proto-stars, we can predict that some fraction
of them will do so.
Agreed.
LH>Do you think that God guided and designed ("progressively created")
>this PARTICULAR solar system, in this particular galaxy, to produce
>this particular planet to support human beings?
Yes. That is what Isa 45:18 says "For this is what the LORD says-- he
who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the
earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it
to be inhabited..."
>Or is it possible that God
>allowed the galaxies to evolve according to natural mechanisms (with
>"chance" playing its proper role) to produce *a* planet, somewhere,
>somewhen, capable of supporting life and humanity.
Chance can play no "role" at all. Chance is just a name we give to our
human ignorance, therefore your sentence resolves down to:
"is it possible that God allowed the galaxies to evolve according to
natural mechanisms (with "human ignorance" playing its proper role) to
produce *a* planet, somewhere, somewhen, capable of supporting life
and humanity?"
But to answer what I think you mean, based on Genesis 1, believe God
used supernatural means to create the universe, and then used
normal "natural" processes to develop it. However, I do not rule out
the possibility that God could intervene from time to time, in His
creation, fashioning it directly, if He wished.
LH>Is *this* theory of stellar/planetary evolution inherently
>anti-theistic? If so, why? If not, how is it
theologically/philosophically different from "Darwinian" evolution?
I will answer your question with a question. Why do you call it
"stellar/planetary evolution *evolution*"?
Does this not confirm what Henry says about "the secular philosophy of
science" (ie. materialist-naturalism) controlling "the terminology of
debate"?
LH>Or to put the question another way: Why is "chance" inherently
>anti-theistic in biology, but not in physics?
That is *not* what I claim. I asked whether *evolution* was not
inherently anti-theistic. I asked no question, nor made no claim
about "biology" or "physics". It is begging the question to
necessarily equate "biology" with "evolution". See again Henry's
statement about about materialist-naturalism fixing the terminology.
>You continue:
SJ>Darwin's theory of
>evolution was one of the greatest disasters suffered by the Church of
>Jesus Christ. Denton, not even a Christian sees this clearly:
>"As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of
>evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking
>was catastrophic. The suggestion that life and man are the result of
>chance is incompatible with the biblical assertion of their being the
>direct result of intelligent creative activity. Despite the attempt
>by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no
>biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
>fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are
>antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can
>probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the
>intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of
>evolution than to any other single factor.
LH>But I reject that "chance and design are antithetical concepts."
>Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers are now happily employing
>genetic algorythms and MonteCarlo techniques to find solutions to certain
>problems. Designed systems can employ "chance" to produce desireable
>outcomes.
I think Denton is using the term "chance" as a synonym for
"undirected". While I do not know anything about genetic algorithms,
again I would on theistic principles deny they are in actual fact
"employ chance", because "chance" is a non-thing.
LH>It seems to me that the fundamental problem is not the use of
>"chance" as part of a scientific theory, but rather a confusion of
>the physicist's use of the word "chance" (an outcome unpredictable or
>unspecifiable in terms of initial conditions) and the biologist's
>use of the word "chance" (an event which is NOT caused by the
>organism in order to improve its survival or reproduction) with a
>_metaphysical_use of the word "Chance" (having no determining cause
>whatsoever).
Agreed. But I am not sure that Darwinism does not sometimes use
"chance" in a metaphysical sense.
SJ>Today ensconced in our comfortable agnosticism, after a century of
>exposure to the idea of evolution and quite inured to the idea of a
>universe without purpose, we tend to forget just what a shock wave the
>advent of evolution sent through the Christian society of Victorian
>England....It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God
>and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact
>was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times
>(with the possible exception of the Copernican) so profoundly affected
>the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."
>(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",1985, Burnett Books,
>pp66-67)
>
SJ>This is why YEC (and even Progressive Creationists like me) are so
>wary of evolution. To us it seems self-evident that it is used by
>Satan in his attack on the Lord's Church, as portrayed in Rev 12:15:
>
>This is a very good point. Theistic Evolutionists would contend (or at
>least, *I* would contend) that Satan has been so successful, at least in
>part, because we have been using poor tactics in the war, by attacking
>evolutionary theory on scientific grounds rather than attacking the
>metaphysical assumptions about "chance and design being antithetical."
Agreed. But if Henry is right about "he fundamental contrast between
the Hebrew-Christian doctrine of creation and the Greek-modern
doctrine of evolution", then the term "Theistic Evolution" may be a
theological oxymoron?
SJ>The question is, is
>the Darwinist theory of macro-evolution an integral part of Satan's
>"flood" or is it neutral, in fact just another good thing that Satan
>has perverted?
LH>That is a *very* good question; thanks for stating it explicitely.
Thank you, but what's the answer Loren? <g>
God bless.
Stephen