Stephen Jones wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Deistic Evolution
>
> Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the
> best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic
> evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,
> producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws
> which its devel- opment has followed. Thus, he programmed the
> process. Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world,
> becoming, so to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created
> order is free of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of
> everything, but only the first living form was directly created. All
> the rest of God's creating has been done indirectly. God is the
> Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate
> cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter,
> deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies
> that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing
> creative process.
>
> Deistic evolution has little difficulty with the scientific data.
> There is a different story with respect to the biblical material,
> however. There is a definite conflict between deism's view of an
> absentee God and the biblical picture of a God who has been involved
> in not merely one but a whole series of creative acts. In particular,
> both of the Genesis accounts of the origin of man indicate that God
> definitely and distinctly willed and acted to bring man into
> existence. In addition, deistic evolution is in conflict with the
> scriptural doctrine of providence, according to which God is
> personally and intimately concerned with and involved in what is going
> on in the specific events within his entire creation.
>
> (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI,
> pp480-481)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I hope this will stimulate some comment. Does anyone disagree with
> Erickson?
I quite agree with Erickson; he does a fine job of describing "Deistic
Evolution."
How is Deistic Evolution different from the "Theistic Evolution" which I
(and others on the reflector) have been proposing?
To answer, I must return to what I think are three useful categories for
describing God's activity in the world:
1. God's "miraculous activity" are the obviously supernatural acts,
unexplainable by means of natural laws or natural mechanisms.
2. God's "interactive activity" are events in which God acts
personally and purposively in ways which we consider unusual, but
which are not obviously SUPERnatural (without additional special
revelation). (Examples would include some healing miracles, or the
seven years of abundance and famine in Joseph's Egypt.)
3. God's "regular activity" in governing the universe is what we
would call the "laws of nature."
Theistic Evolution, unlike Deism, insists that "God is constantly active
in sustaining and governing the universe. Nature is not autonomous...."
Therefore, in Theism (unlike Deism), God is meaningfully active in the
third category.
In addition, Deistic Evolution restricts God's activity, after the initial
creation event, to the third category alone. Theistic Evolution allows
for a significant amount of the second category during the formative
history of the physical and the biological world. (Actually, a whole
range of activities in the continuum between the second and third
categories.) Indeed, if you believe, like Terry Gray and some other T.E.s
do, that "replaying the tape of evolution" would result in exactly the
same end-product -- because the outcome of every "random" event is
pre-ordained by God -- then every "random" or "chance" event in physics or
biology falls more into the second category than the third. (Moreover,
since God's acts of Special Revelation and personal communication with
human beings fall variously into categories one and two, all Theistic
Evolutionists would insist that the second category, if not the first,
becomes increasingly important during the developmental history of human
beings.)
These three categories (miraculous/interactive/regular activity) are not
discrete; there is a continuum from the first to the second to the third.
And some versions of "Progressive Creation" do not insist that there must
have been acts in the first category at all. Some versions of Progressive
Creation could also be described as using "a significant amount of the
second category during the formative history of the biological world" to
account for all of the past and present lifeforms. What, then, is the
difference between Theistic Evolution and this kind of Progressive
Creation? I would crudely characterize the difference as: different
expectations regarding the hypothetical succeess of "unguided" (Deistic)
evolution. In other words, in answer to the question, "Are the laws of
nature (and the biochemical and biological mechanisms which we see
operating today) sufficiently fruitful that we would expect 'Deistic
evolution' to eventually produce something interesting?" Progressive
Creation would emphatically answer "NO," while Theistic Evolution would
answer, "Probably, Yes."
(Note: I can only truly speak for myself. If any other T.E.-proponents
out there would like to differ with this perspective, please let me know.)
To take an analogy, "Theistic Stellar Evolution" believes that the natural
mechanisms of gravity and nuclear and atomic forces can start with a cloud
of hydrogen and helium and eventually produce all of the astronomical
forms we perceive today (including galaxies, stars, and planets with an
abundance of heavier elements capable of supporting life); it still leaves
open the question whether God acted personally and purposively (second
category) during the formation of any _particular_ galaxy, star, or
planet.
Maybe another analogy will help. Glenn Morton recently wrote a computer
program called "Cambrian Explosion." In this program, a shape on the
screen is encoded digitally by a sequence of "genes." The numeric values
of the various genes control the exact shape of the screen "animal," and
mutations in each gene can cause small or (occasionally) large changes in
the animal's shape. The program starts with a single-pixel "dot" animal,
and typically evolves to much more complex shapes as the genome "mutates."
Let's imagine a variation on this game. Let's replace the computer's
pseudo-random algorithm with something more truly random to control
mutations: a mechanical coin-tosser; or, better yet, a small solid-state
circuit which quantum-mechanically "tosses a coin."
Let us also imagine that the computer has a small black button which
allows an intelligent user to override the value provided by the
coin-tosser, and to input the user's desired value of the mutation.
Let us also imagine that there is a large red button which allows the user
to overwrite the genome completely.
(Note the analogy to the "three kinds of activity" above.)
Note that, after any particular _single_ mutation, it is impossible to
tell (simply from the initial and final products) whether or not the black
button was pushed. However, if the black button is pushed a great many
times, it might or might not become obvious, from the sequence of
products, whether or not the black button is being used -- it would depend
upon what values were being input.
As I perceive it, the difference between Progressive Creation and Theistic
Evolution is not necessarily a difference between how often the black
button or the red button is believed to have been pushed. Rather, it is a
difference of opinion about the program itself. Glenn Morton wrote his
program so that, even if the black button or the red button is never
pushed, the program will almost inevitably generate a variety of
interesting and complex shapes. In other words, the "genomic phase space"
of his program is rich with complexity. He need not have done so. Glenn
could have written his program so that most of genomic phase space
produced nothing but boring "dot" and "single line" shapes, and only a
tiny fraction of it produced complex shapes. In THAT case, it would be
staggeringly improbable that the program would produce interesting shapes
unless the red button is pushed, or the black one pushed a whole bunch of
times.
Based on my participation in this group, and on a great deal of other
reading, I would characterize Progressive Creation (and also Intelligent
Design theory) as a belief that, so to speak, Glenn's program REQUIRES a
good deal of button-pushing to produce interesting shapes, while Theistic
Evolution believes that Glenn's program produces lots of interesting
shapes quite apart from how much button-pushing is involved.
So some Christians, based on their experience as scientists and their
knowledge of biology, believe that there is no (statistically meaningful)
way that natural mechanisms could account for the biochemical and
biological forms which we see in the past and present; their conclusion is
"Progressive Creation." Other Christians like myself, based on our
experience as scientists and our knowledge of biology, believe that the
natural mechanisms of evolutionary biology CAN produce the past and
present lifeforms (yes, even eyes and wings and whales and flagella) --
analogous with "Theistic Stellar Evolution;" the conclusion of this
perspective is "Theistic (biological) Evolution."
And this brings me to my final point. You quoted J.P. Moreland:
> "Criticisms of the Model
> Objection 1. The theistic science model utilizes an epistemically
> inappropriate "God-of-the-gaps" strategy in which God only acts when
> there are gaps in nature; one appeals to God merely to fill gaps in
> our scientific knowledge of naturalistic mechanisms. These gaps are
> used in apologetic, natural-theology arguments to support Christian
> theism. Scientific progress is making these gaps increasingly rare,
> and thus this strategy is not a good one.
>
> Reply. First, the model does not limit God's causal activity to gaps.
> God is constantly active in sustaining and governing the universe.
> Nature is not autonomous...
>
> Second, the model does not appeal to or attempt to explain in light of
> God and his activities to cover our ignorance, but only when good
> theological or philosophical reasons are present, such as when certain
> theological or philosophical reasons would cause us to expect a
> discontinuity in nature where God acted via primary causation (e.g.,
> the origin of the universe, first life, basic "kinds" of life).
>
> Third, even if the gaps in naturalistic scientific explanations are
> getting smaller, this does not prove that there are no gaps at all.
> It. begs the question to argue that just because most alleged gaps turn
> out to be explainable in naturalistic terms without gaps at that level
> of explanation, all alleged gaps will turn out this way. After all,
> it is to be expected that gaps will be few..."
>
> (Moreland J.P., "Theistic Science & Methodological Naturalism",
> in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, Inter
> Varsity Press, Illinois, p59)
I basically agree with Moreland, and wish only to address his second
point.
Why did Moreland include FIRST LIFE and the CREATION OF BASIC "KINDS" OF
LIFE -- but exclude STELLAR FORMATION and FORMATION OF THE EARTH'S SEAS
AND LAND -- as events for which "theological or philosophical reasons
would cause us to expect a discontinuity in nature where God actied via
primary causation"? As I read the creation account of Genesis 1, I see at
least as much, if not more, emphasis on special-creative acts of God
regarding the heavenly bodies and the geological features of the earth,
than I do regarding the creation of plants and animals!
I can understand strong _theological_ reasons for prefering Progressive
Creation or Fiat Creation over Theistic Evolution when it comes to human
origins.
I can understand _scientific_ reluctance to embrace biological
macroevolutionary theory as tightly as, say, stellar evolutionary theory.
The two theories are on very different empirical grounds.
But here is one question which keeps me reading and posting to this
reflector so often:
WHY do so many Christian scholars find _theological_ reasons for chosing
Progressive Creation over Theistic Evolution in the formative history of
plants and animals, while at the same time chosing Theistic Evolution in
the formative history of galaxies, stars, and planets?
==================================================================
I hope you find this helpful. I look forward to your (or anyone else's)
comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, | Loren Haarsma
and I'm happy to say I finally won out." | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
--Elwin P. Dowde (_Harvey_) |