On Mon, 12 Jun 1995 19:42:52 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>In several recent posts, Stephen Jones has been effectively
>challenging proponents of "Theistic Evolution" to show how it is
>different from "Deistic Evolution" on one hand and from "Progressive
>Creation" on the other. Here is my own answer to the challenge.
>Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>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 development 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...(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985,
>Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, pp480-481)
>
SJ>I hope this will stimulate some comment. Does anyone disagree with
>Erickson?
>
LH>I quite agree with Erickson; he does a fine job of describing
>"Deistic Evolution."
LH>How is Deistic Evolution different from the "Theistic Evolution"
>which I>(and others on the reflector) have been proposing?
LH>To answer, I must return to what I think are three useful
>categories for describing God's activity in the world:
>
LH>1. God's "miraculous activity" are the obviously supernatural acts,
>unexplainable by means of natural laws or natural mechanisms.
Agreed. I would not rule out God acting miraculously as the key part
of a larger process. For example Jesus' miracles of healing where He
used some mud mixed with saliva to restore a man's sight (Jn 9:6). In
a Progressive Creation context Genesis 1 seems to speak of both
supernatural (Gn 1:1,3) and natural (Gn 1:11) creative activity of
God, even for the same thing:
Gn 1:24 "And God said, "Let the land produce...livestock"
Gn 1:25 "God made the...livestock"
LH>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.)
Agreed.
>3. God's "regular activity" in governing the universe is what we
>would call the "laws of nature."
Agreed.
LH>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.
OK. Thanks for this distinction (which I was aware of). My point was
that some of Glenn's mathematical models sounded too much like the
Deism.
LH>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.)
If TE allows that "God acts personally and purposively" in "the
formative history of the physical and the biological world", then
their position is very close to what I believe. Perhaps I am a TE and
don't know it? <g>
I would be quite happy to concede that God's progressive creative
activity was subtle and possibly unobservable, much like He acts in
history (eg. the weather just "happened" to be fine at Dunkirk,
Israel's 6-day war, etc). The key in Progressive Creation is that
natural processes alone would not be sufficient:
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical
radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to
several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the
unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal
radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the
theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps
because vertical progress takes place only by creation." (Ramm B.
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955, Paternoster,
London, p191)
LH>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.
I would not see this as necessary in most cases. I would be quite
happy with God maintaining and developing His world by normal
"natural" processes.
LH>(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.)
Here I differ. I don't see any Biblical need for God to create human
beings any different from animals. The Bible places man among
the land animals: 1. both are created on the 6th day (Gn 1:24-31);
2. both are from the earth (Gn 1:24; 2:7); 3. both have the breath of
life (Gn 1:30; 2:7; 2:7; 6:17; 7:15,22).
IMHO God could have created the humans from a prexisting hominid body
or genetic material, since the "dust" of Gn 2:7 is equivalent to man's
physical body (Gn 3:19; Ps 103:14).
LH>These three categories (miraculous/interactive/regular activity)
>are not discrete; there is a continuum from the first to the second
>to the third.
Here I disagree. Biblically there is a clear distinction between
God's supernatural activity and His natural activity. This was the
whole point behind the miracles of Jesus attesting conclusively to His
deity:
"do you say of him, whom the Father consecrated and sent into the
world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?
If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; But
if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works:
that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in
the Father." (Jn 10:36-38 RSV)
LH>And some versions of "Progressive Creation" do not insist that
>there must have been acts in the first category at all.
I would claim that there must be "acts in the first category" in at
least where scripture uses the word "bara'" in Genesis 1:
"Progressive creationists may differ over exactly how often God
intervened, but as far as I can tell, they all agree that God created
directly at the three points where the Hebrew word bara' is used-the
creation of heaven and earth, the creation of animal life, and the
creation of man. Most progressive creationists hold that God
intervened more often than this." (Moreland J.P., "Scaling the
Secular City", 1987, Baker, p217)
LH>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.
Yes. But only at strategic points, eg. major "macro-evolutionary"
higher taxa transitions and possibly formation of Darwin's "organs of
extreme perfection" (e.g feather, eye, ear, etc).
LH>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."
Loren, I think this is half right. Firstly I take "unguided" (Deistic)
evolution" as equivalent to naturalistic evolution. I find it frankly
unbelievable that life, major transitions and complex organs could
ever arise by purely natural processes.
But there is a second reason why I believe there is a difference
between TE and PC and that is I don't believe TE is fully in accord
with Biblical theism. The Bible depicts God acting both
transcendently and immanently in creation. Yet TE seems to subsume
God's transcendent activity into His immanent activity. If TE holds
that God did in fact act directly (ie. supernaturally) at certain
strategic points in creation (not just in the creation of man), then I
would maintain they are PC's, not TE's.
LH>(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.)
>
LH>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.
So might PC. There is just not enough evidence, Biblically or
scientifically, to decide. PC could see God's intervention in the
fine-tunedness of the universe and especially in the preparation of
the Earth for man's advent.
LH>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."
>
LH>Let's imagine a variation on this game. Let's replace the
>computer'spseudo-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."
>
LH>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.
>
LH>Let us also imagine that there is a large red button which allows
>the user to overwrite the genome completely.
>
LH>(Note the analogy to the "three kinds of activity" above.)
Any symbolism in the colour and size? <g>
LH>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.
I agree. Perhaps 1000 black button pushes = 1 red button push!
LH>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.
IMHO if TE believes that there was direct external button pushing
then that is equivalent to PE.
LH>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.
Yes. That's why I thought Glenn's program was Deistic. It seemed no
different to the Deistic model of God designing the world like a giant
clock, winding it up and letting it run without further intervention.
>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.
Yes. I haven't yet run Glenn's programs, but from his description, I
still am not sure that Glenn's "interesting shapes" are not just that
- shapes. There is an implicit assumption that life is just DNA. I
believe this is an open question because: a) the Bible depicts life
as the product of God's personal "breath" (Gn 2:7); and b) science has
got essentially nowhere after 40 years of trying to create life from
non-life.
LH>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.
No. PC would allow many "interesting shapes" in the sense of
horizontal variation on existing themes within limits, but would
maintain that any genuinely new themes would require external
"button-pushing".
LH>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."
Agreed. Suggest also add "their understanding of Biblical theism, "
after "based on"! <g> I believe it is important that if tbe Bible is
God's unique revelation and it speaks on a topic that science also
speaks on, that the *essential* Biblical message has priority.
LH>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."
By "natural" do you mean with black button-pushing?
LH>And this brings me to my final point. You quoted J.P. Moreland:
>
SJ>"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)
>
LH>I basically agree with Moreland, and wish only to address his
>second point.
>
LH>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"?
He said "e.g". These were three examples. He may believe there are
more.
LH>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 agree re the creation of the universe (Gn 1:1) and perhaps with "the
geological features of the earth". I also agree that the origin of
life (ie. vegetation) does not receive a special mention in Genesis 1
(except for sea creatures 1:21). But I do not believe Genesis 1 says
much about the special creation of "heavenly bodies".
LH>I can understand strong _theological_ reasons for prefering
>Progressive Creation or Fiat Creation over Theistic Evolution when it
>comes to human origins.
Agreed.
LH>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.
Yes. I am glad you recognise that.
LH>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 don't chose "Theistic Evolution in the formative history of
galaxies, stars, and planets". I believe PC is the better
Biblical and scientific model for all of creation.
It's just we have almost no Biblical info on the "formative history of
galaxies, stars, and planets". Genesis 1 from verse 2 says "Now the
earth..." and deals with the Earth only, the sun. moon and stars being
referred to only as they relate to the Earth (eg. lights,
time-keepers, etc).
Also there is a different degree of complexity, as Dawkins points
out:
"The diference is the complexity of design. Biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed
for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt
us to invoke design." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991,
Penguin, p1)
LH>I hope you find this helpful. I look forward to your (or anyone
LH>else's) comments.
Thanks for the discussion Loren. Sorry for my unavoidable delay. Hope
my points are still relevant.
God bless.
Stephen