-------------------
Thanks to Stephen Jones for his thoughtful replies to my posts.
I'm combining two threads here, since they overlap.
Re: fitting the scientific data
> LH>Given our current level of
> >scientific understanding, the "error bars" on the natural mechanisms
> >are, I believe, large enough to cover the fossil record data.
>
SJ> I disagree. I believe it will never be possible to construct a fully
> satisfactory naturalistic account of the origin and development of
> life. Naturalism is inherently flawed by limiting itself to the
> material and natural and ignoring the evidence for extra-natural
> causes.
> [...]
> I do not believe the gaps will be closed and I am prepared to
> make the risky, falsifiable prediction that the "gapless economy" of
> TE has not and will not materialise.
The focus of my original "fits the data better / extra degrees of freedom"
critique was against versions of Progressive Creation which fail to make
any risky, falsifiable predicitons about WHERE the "gapless economy"
hypothesis will fail. I'm glad you're willing to "go out on a limb" and
make a prediction as to where: the origins of higher taxa. (class,
phyla, etc.) It looks like we have a simple difference of opinion here
regarding our scientific intuitions (based on sketchy data). Since
neither of us are interested in pursuing this particular line any further
right now, I'll move on.
----------------
Re: fitting the Biblical data
SJ> My main point is that PC fits the *Biblical* data better. I am
> not yet sure enough about the scientific data to claim that PC fits
> the scientific data better.
> [...]
> Again I refer to a fully naturalistic history of Israel. Does that
> mean as soon as naturalism can account for the Exodus purely
> naturalistically, we just give up on our supernaturalistic
> understanding of it, as revealed in Scripture?
We both agree that a "purely naturalistic" account of the history of
Isreal (your favorite analogy) is unscriptural. We both agree that
descriptions of stellar formation or microevolution (my favorite
analogies) in terms of the continuous operation of natural mechanisms
*are* theologically acceptable.
I continue to contend that the Biblical data does not preferentially
support a miraculous, rather than a non-miraculous, developmental history
of higher taxa.
SJ> I don't believe this is proved that the development of the universe
> can be adequately described scientifically. What about the Big Bang
> itself? What about the first microseconds of the Big Bang? What
> about the faster than light inflationary period immediately after the
> Big Bang? Just because you can describe something with a naturalistic
> theory, does not mean it really happened that way. Doesn't God warn
> us of assuming we can know what really happened during creation
> events: Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
> Tell me, if you understand."?
No, I don't think this passage is about warning us that we cannot know
what happened during creation. (Although, indeed, it may be that we will
never know.) Rather, this passage is God's warning that our human
understanding is far too limited to question God's motives or accuse his
actions (which Job was doing, or at least perilously close to doing). The
passage you quote ends with (40:2), "Will the one who contends with the
Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!"
> LH>1. To quote D. Wilcox (again), "Anyone who is a fully biblical
> >theist must consider ordinary processes controlled by natural law to
> >be as completely and deliberately the wonderful acts of God as any
> >miracle, equally contingent upon his free and unhindered will."
> >2. There ARE times when it is very appropriate to "minimize (the
> >hypothesis of) God's supernatural involvement in the natural world."
> >See below.
>
SJ> Of course I agree with all the above. Nothing I say about God's
> special supernatural work in creation should betaken as minimising his
> normal natural work in creation or providence. I believe in both,
> just as I believe in God's love and wrath. My point was that TE (at
> least espoused by Glenn) does seem to go out of its way to minimise
> God's direct involvement in the natural world. For example, Glenn has
> compared God's work in creation to be analogous to a man who sets up a
> wave-making machine in his office and then leaves it running. While
> this may be an analogy of providence (even that is debateable) it is
> not IMHO an adequate amalogy for *creation* as revealed in the Bible.
Again, there are instances when it is utterly appropriate for a Christian
to hypothesis a _minimum_ of God's "direct" (by which I believe you mean
"miraculous") involvement. When the Center for Disease Control is puzzled
by how a new disease organism originated and spreads, I'm glad that they
stick with the "naturalistic mechanisms" hypothesis despite their puzzling
data. Based on the biblical and scientific data, I believe that studying
the origins of higher taxa might well be another such instance.
SJ> If TE fails to make this fundamental distinction between what Erickson
> calls "God's Originating Work: Creation" and "God's Continuing Work:
> Providence (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, Baker, Grand
> Rapids, MI), then it must be judged to be not fully Biblical.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find a dozen biblical passages
(mostly in the poetry books and the poetic sections of the prophets) where
the text quickly leaps back and forth between God's "creation work" and
God's "providential work" in nature -- using basically the same language
to describe both.
SJ> IMHO TE is reductionist to the Biblical data, crunching
> creation up and subsuming it under providence.
I am willing to grant that it may be important at times to distinguish
between God's "creation work" and his "providential work." I'm not
convinced that the developmental history of any particular higher taxa
should fall any less under "providential work" than, say, zygotic
development, microevolution, or planetary formation.
Regarding this subject, I am grateful to Glenn Morton for pointing out
that when God created "genomic phase space" (which is itself a result of
the laws of chemistry, which are themselves a result of the fundamental
properties of atoms and nuleii, which are in turn a result of the basic
properties of the fundamental particles and forces), he created ALL
potentials genomes for ALL potential living organisms, INCLUDING the
potentail connective pathways (via mutation) between them.
---------------------
Re: Genesis 1 and progressive creation
You have said that you find, in the Genesis 1 narrative, STRONGER reasons
for hypothesizing miraculous acts in the developmental history of plants
and animals that for hypothesizing miraculous acts in the developmental
history of the sun, moon, and stars.
Here's what I see in the text: The (human) author had a "flat earth"
cosmology in mind. Water was the first, fundamental element. There was a
horizontal "gap" in these primeaval waters, creating a "sky sandwich" with
water above and water below, with the "earth" founded and established on
the lower waters. (Incidentally, it seems to me that when the (human)
author of the flood narrative says that "the springs of the great deep
burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened," he was not
(in his mind at least) using poetic and metaphorical language. He was
talking about literal, physical structures! The flood was literally a
(partial) undoing of the second and third days of creation!)
DAY 1 DAY 4
----- -----
Creation of light; day and night. Creation of greater and lesser lights;
physical structures in the sky to
mark time and "govern" night and day.
DAY 2 DAY 5
----- -----
Separation of waters to create Creation of biological forms to fill
the sky. the water and sky: fish and birds.
DAY 3 DAY 6
----- -----
Gathering of waters to create dry Creation of biological forms to fill
ground; creation of land vegetation. the land: animals, and man.
I just don't see, in the text, reason to hypothesize preferential
"miraculous" treatment of biological structures over physical structures.
We may have to settle for a simple difference of opinion here.
SJ> Thanks for this discussion.
Thank you. This has been very helpful.
Loren Haarsma