ABSTRAT: Our BEST tactic is to carefully and painstakingly separate the
terms "evolution" and "chance" -- which scientists use in a fairly
technical way in their technical discussions -- from the anti-theistic
baggage they often acquire in public debate. When we instead launch
wholesale attacks against the terms, the anti-theistic baggage just clings
all the tighter.
--------------
In an earlier post, Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ> 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).
Much as I respect Carl Henry's writings on many topics, I think his
dichotomy here is far from crystal-clear. In fact, I think I can stand it
on its head. Are there not more than a few _pagan_ creation stories
depicting supernatural agents creating "graded levels of life?" (In fact,
wasn't this used to justify a stratified social order in several
cultures?) And I seem to recall some "fixity of forms" in Greek
philosophical thought, too. On the other hand, "modern" views of creation
(including modern cosmology, gradualism in geology, and evolution in
biology) follow from the idea that the natural mechanisms which we observe
on earth today operate(d) the same way "in the heaveans" and in the past
-- an idea which is integrally part of the natural philosophy which gave
rise to modern science; this natural philosophy which gave rise to modern
science, more than a few historians of science tell us, itself arose out
of the Hebrew-Christian belief that the universe was created by and is
governed consistently by a transcendent, personal God.
So I don't buy Henry's dichotomy, as stated. No doubt the true story is
more complicated that either his or my version. Is there an historian of
science in the house?
> 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>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"?
In a word, no.
I assume "evolution" was a reasonably well-defined term before Darwin made
it famous (or infamous). I would guess it meant something like "slowly
changing from one form to another through a series of small steps." The
slow metamorphosis of a cloud of diffuse hydrogen and helium, through
gravitational collapse, the begining of nuclear fusion, the chain of
nucleo-synthesis, the nova event, and the final collapse of the core and
the creation of a nebula, sounds like a pretty good candidate for the term
"evolution" (suitably unpacked from its "secular" baggage, of course) to
me.
Frankly, I think it is (in large part) the Christian critics of
evolutionary theory who are "controlling the terms of the debate," and are
making rather a hash of it, whenever they set up a dichotomy between a
largely technical term such as "evolution" and a largely (though not
exclusively) theological term such as "creation."
When scientists use the term "evolution" in technical discussions with
colleagues, they almost invariably use it in a _technical_ way, much as
they use the terms "erosion" or "vulcanism," quite devoid of
materialist-naturalistic philosophical overtones. It is when
non-Christian scientists write "popular" books and engage in public debate
with Creationists that they clothe "the Theory of Evolution" in
Materialistic-Naturalistic overtones. Granted, Darwin did it first! But
ever since then, Christians have been allowing Darwin and his successors
free reign in confusing "evolution" and "Naturalistic Evolution." Rather
than teaching these "secular scientists" how to avoid confusing a
technical term with a metaphysical one, Christians continue billing the
debate as "Creation VERSUS Evolution" -- which only encourages the
confusion.
SJ continues:
> 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)
and
> 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.
I grew up immersed in a (mostly Dutch) "Reformed" Christian culture.
Many-a-time I've heard a person, half-jokingly and half-seriously, say
that you shouldn't wish anyone "Good Luck!" because there's no such thing
as luck -- after all, it's really God's providence! However, casually
wishing someone, "Good Providence!" always seemed a little awkward and a
little presumptuous, so it never gained common usage. :-) When they want
to express their genuine desire that their friend will have safe journeys
and good health, Reformed Christians still wish their friends, "Good
Luck." It's a _useful_ term for everyday sentiments, even if it's
important to occasionally do a careful theological dance around it.
"Chance" is a useful term for grouping certain kinds of events in quantum
physics, classical physics, and biology. It's certainly a useful term
when describing the mechanics of microevolution and how certain traits are
inherited. Darwin and Gould and Dawkins and Monod freely confuse it with
"metaphysical Chance" in their popular writings; however,
macroevolutionary theory can easily be framed to use the term "chance" in
precisely the same way it's used in microevolutionary theory.
R.C. Sproul seems to want us to eliminate the word from our vocabulary.
I much prefer the way Christian writers like Donald MacKay and John
Polikinghorne pull its metaphysical teeth -- and "bring it under the
lordship of Christ" -- and still retain its usefulness as an "everyday"
sort of term for the scientists.
Summary: We agree that a _scientific_ theory cannot be inherently
anti-theistic, per se. We agree that evolutionary theory is often posed
in an anti-theistic way.
I *firmly* believe that our best tactic is to do the slow, careful work of
separating the terms "evolution" and "chance" -- which scientists use in a
fairly technical way in their technical discussions -- from the
anti-theistic baggage they so often acquire in public debate. When we
instead launch wholesale attacks against the terms, the anti-theistic
baggage just seems to cling all the tighter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why should I have to WORK for everything? |
That's like saying I don't DESERVE it." | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu