On Thu, 13 Jul 1995 12:05:33 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: The remaining issue seems to be: continuity or
>discontinuity between "natural" and "supernatural" acts.
LH>It looks like we're finding a lot of points of agreement, and our
points of "reasonable disagreement" are becoming more precisely
defined. Thanks for the time, care, and friendliness of your posts.
Thanks for your positive feedback, Loren! :-)
LH>I asked you to provide a consistent theological/philosophical
>reason for _expecting_ that the "discontinuities" (i.e.
>observational data which does not fit well with our current "best"
>theoretical expectations) in the development of higher biological
>taxa will _remain_ discontinuities as our theories and data improve
>(and therefore provide evidence for supernatural activity), while at
>the same time expecting that "discontinuities" in our understanding
>of, for example, galactic formation, microevolution, and zygotic
>development will probably be resolved in terms of a continuity of
>>natural mechanisms. You have done so to my satisfaction. I don't
>agree 100% with your line of reasoning (obviously :-), but it does
>make sense to me.
I don't agree 100% with my own line of reasoning either! :-) I
believe it requires a deep study of the relevant scientific facts at a
detailed level. Over time I intend to do that. Unfortunately, there
aren't all that many PC books around. I understand that Pat Pun, a
lurking member of this Reflector, had published his book "Evolution:
Nature and Scriptures in Conflict?" (1982, Zondervan), which
aparently defended PC, but it is as out of print.
LH>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.
>SJ> I don't disagree with Glenn. But the question of whether God brought
>the *particular* organisms into being by a purely natural process or
>selected them specifically, is under debate.
LH>It's under debate even _within_ the Theistic Evolution position.
>(And, I'll bet, there's a certain latitude on this issue within
>Progressive Creation, too -- i.e. just HOW "particular" do you
>mean?) I see this question as a theological issue as to whether
>events which are described by "natural laws" and "stochastic
>processes" are strongly _proscribed_ by God, or whether they have a
>certain creaturely independence which is still nevertheless dependent
>upon God for its continued existence. Of course, I'm not sure
>whether that's really an either/or question. I AM sure that I'm not
>going to try to tackle that one today.
As I said, I am not an expert on PC. But it seems to me that there is
a fair bit of lattitude between PC positions. The essence seems to be
that if God was involved directly at some point in the process of
developing the living world, then that is PC (or YEC). If it was all
a purely natural process then that is TE (or NE). Those TE's who claim
that God intervened directly in the origin of life or the creation of
man, I believe are really PC's.
LH>Regarding what Genesis 1 teaches:
>
>SJ> What it teaches is God and His acts in creation. Those acts are both
>supernatural and natural as I read Gn 1.
>
LH>This is the biggest loose thread in our discussion, and may well be
>the source of much of our final disagreement. I have said before
>that I see a continuum between God's "miraculous" acts and his
>"ordinary" acts describable by natural law. (Events such as
>receiving spiritual insight as a result of prayer, or the seven years
>of abundance and famine in Joseph's Egypt, falling somewhere between
>the two ends of the spectrum.) You disagreed with this, and said
>that you see a strong distinction between "supernatural" and
>"natural" acts. Could you elaborate on why you believe it is
>important to make this distinction, and give some examples of how you
>would classify some "borderline" examples? Thanks.
The "strong distinction" I see between God's "supernatural" and
"natural" acts, is described inherent in the two words themselves. In
God's "natural" works, He does not create anything new, but transforms
that which already exists. However, in God "supernatural" work, He
brings something geneuinely new into existence. Sometimes the
distinction is not clear. Perhaps the best examples are from the life
and work of Jesus:
1. Miracles of creation ex nihilo. The most evident act of creation
ex nihilo is surely the creation by God of the human father's side of
the man Jesus (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35)? Whatever else this great mystery of
of faith was, the Incarnation at least must have surely been the
creation ex-nihilo by God of a human set of 23 male chromosomes to
complement Mary's 23 female chromosomes? Some of Jesus miracles of
healing may have been ex-nihilo creation of destroyed biological
tissue, but we cannot be sure.
2. Miracles of replication. The feeding of 5,000 people with 5 loaves
and two fish, (Mt 14:17) is a miracle of replication. Jesus either
cloned the loaves and fish, or he created ex-nihilo new biological
material. Which ever way it was, it was creation of biiological
molecules out of nothing.
3. Miracles of transformation. The turning of water into wine (Jn
2:9), is the most obvious example. The formula for the ethyl alcohol
in wine is (I understand) CH2CH2OH, leaving aside all the other
ingredients such as sugars, etc. The hydrogen and oxygen no doubt
were obtained from the water in the jars, but where did the carbon
come from? Remember they were stone jars, not wooden casks. Perhaps
there was at least one carbon atom in the water and Jesus replicated
it? Whichever way it was, this must have been a "supernatural"
miracle of creation.
4. Miracles of repair. Jesus' healing miracles are for the most part,
maintenance miracles. The existing biological material may have
already existed (eg. withered limbs), but needed re-growing or even
removing (eg. blindness might have been cataracts). These may not have
been creation, but the augmentation and speeding up of natural healing
mechanisms in the bodies of those healed.
All of Jesus' miracles involved means, even where the primary factor
is God's ex-nihilo creation of new material. The Incarnation needed
Mary's maternal biological processes, the loaves, fish and water
already existed before they were transformed or replicated. At least
one of Jesus' miracles of healing used natural means (eg. saliva and
mud - Jn 9:6). However, in each case it is clear that while natural
processes played a part, they are not the primary cause of the
miracle. A direct supernatural acts of God is the primary cause of
the healing. The difference between natural and supernatural was
clearly recognised and claimed by Christ as self-evident proof of His
divine origin and authority (Jn 10:25,37-38,14:10-11).
In terms of creation, the best way to make the distinction between
God's "miraculous" acts in creation and his "ordinary" works in
providence is to first recognise the fundamental discontinuity that
Genesis 1 sets a between God's work of creation and his ongoing work
of providence:
"God saw ALL THAT HE HAD MADE, and it was very good. And there was
evening, and there was morning--the sixth day. Thus the heavens and
the earth WERE COMPLETED in all their vast array. By the seventh day
God had FINISHED THE WORK he had been doing; so on the seventh day he
RESTED FROM ALL HIS WORK. And God blessed the seventh day and made it
holy, because on it he RESTED FROM ALL THE WORK OF CREATING that he
had done. This is the account of the heavens and the earth WHEN THEY
WERE CREATED..." (Gn 1:31-2:4 emphasis mine).
While creating something and maintaining it might at some points
require similar processes, scripture indicates there is a fundamental
difference between the two as far as God's work is concerned.
To me this is a major problem for TE theories that see creation and
providence as essentially continuous. Any Christian theory of origins
that does not recognise the essential qualitative difference between
God's work in creation as described in Genesis 1 and his ongoing work
of providence, is to that extent, IMHO not a truly Biblical theory.
What I have seen of TE is that it does not seem to recognise this
fundamental distinction.
God bless.
Stephen