On Wed, 28 Jun 1995 17:44:09 +0930 you wrote:
ABSTRACT: Mark asked some very good questions about whether evolution
can be described in completely naturalistic terms, and if it can, how
can
we know God was involved? My reply contrasts possible TE and PC
responses.
MP>Evolution as a theory has its problems, but whatever the _true_
>explanation of our origins is, it must, at least in a crude sense,
>resemble evolution.
The fossil record reveals the remains of organic beings preserved in
approximately ascending order of time. These remains exhibit
similarities and differences which enable the beings to be grouped
into classes and sub-classes. These similarities and differences also
exhibit change over time. The fossil record is imperfect and complex.
There are major systematic gaps between classes.
Naturalistic evolution (NE) assumes: 1. that these organic beings
were all related by descent from a common ancestor; and 2. the
mechanism for their origin and change over time was by 100% natural
processes.
MP>The key questions are
>1. Is the _true_ theory completely describable in naturalistic terms, or
>must it include supernatural ocurrences in its description (PC or the PC
>end of the TE spectrum).
The theory may be able to be completely described in naturalistic
terms. Whether that is a true description is another matter. TE
would say that that NE is right in assuming common ancestry but
wrong in a metaphysical claim that there was no need for a Creator.
PC would agree with the fossil evidence, but would disagree that it
was a 100% natural process. It would see natural processes as God
actualising His archetypal designs and be open to God intervening at
strategic points to achieve those designs. In particular PC would
point to the difficulties of: 1. accounting for the origin of life on
purely naturalistic processes; 2. the major systematic gaps in the
fossil record; 3. the sudden appearance of new designs fully formed;
and 4. the exquisite design evident throughout nature (eg. feather,
eye, etc); and 5. where a new feature far exceeds the demands of the
orgnanism (eg. the human brain).
PC would also challenge NE to substantiate how these new and complex
designs designs could rise rapidly by purely natural mechanisms of
mutation + natural selection. PC could also point to the genetic code
and human language as examples of a fundamentally different kind of
order (ie. specified complexity) that has no homologue in nature.
MP>2. If it is describable in naturalistic terms, in what way can God
>be said to be involved, and how can we _know_ he is involved?
a. The issues of being describable in natural terms and being a true
description, are separate. For example, it may be possible to
describe the resurrection of Jesus in purely naturalistic terms, but
Christians would argue that that would not be a true description. PC
would argue that the process of biological change over time could not
be completely and accurately described in purely naturalistic terms.
A TE would presumably argue that it is possible to describe reality in
100% naturalistic terms, but would point to the existence of laws that
determine the result. Both TE's and PC's would agree that God works in
and through those natural laws.
b. In what way can God be said to be involved? God is the designer,
originator and sustainer of all things, including life. Jesus
demonstrated God's absolute and direct control of nature (eg. stilling
of storm); the ability to transform nature (eg. water into wine); and
the the power to create new reality (eg. loaves and fishes).
TE would emphasise God's immanent control of nature from within (ie.
a closed system). PC would affirm God's immanent control over nature
but be open to God's ability to intervene transcendentally in nature
from without (ie. an open system).
With our knowledge of the universal genetic code, it is possible to
understand that the Programmer could modify existing code (TE); or
even insert new code (PC), to bring about a desired outcome.
c. How can we know God is involved? It is the claim of scripture (Ps
19:1-4; Rom 1:16f) and the fact of experience that all men know
intuitively there is a Creator God (however much they suppress and
distort it). Ultimately we actually know very little of origins.
Both macro-evolution and creation are a series of hypothesised unique
events, unobservable and unrepeatable. Both the evolutionist and the
creationist
must build models of reality and infer relationships from the data to
fit
those models. Ultimately we all (Christians and non-Christians), "walk
by faith, not by sight" (2Cor 5:7).
Mark, thank you for these very good questions. <g>
God bless.
Stephen