Loren Haarsma wrote on 14th August:
"For the sake of clarity, I should rewrite the "first defect of
neo-Darwinian literature" this way:
1a) The claim, "If-macroevolution-then-no-Creator." (That is,
the claim that IF biological history can be reconstructed in
terms of the regular and continuous operation of empirically
known natural mechanisms, THEN there was no Creator who designed
and guided the system..."
I must admit that this causes me a few problems! For a
start, I find it difficult to use your descriptor of "clarity".
Naturalistic science is a philosophical approach I think I
understand clearly; theistic science likewise - in terms of God
upholding and sustaining the Cosmos; but an evolutionary history
with purpose and design needs MUCH, MUCH, MUCH clarification.
In terms of our apologetics, I find no difficulty showing
the harmony of "faith" statements and "science" statements - they
are complementary and compatible. This is the issue that I wish
to explore in more detail: WHEN is it appropriate to use the
principle of complementarity?
There are contexts where complementarity is right and
proper. Isaac Newton the physicist described mathematically the
gravitational forces between to objects and discovered the laws
of motion. Isaac Newton the believer regarded his research
results as a description of God's providence - upholding the
universe which he had made. "God causes the rain to fall to
water the Earth" is a complementary statement to "The
gravitational attraction between a raindrop and the Earth results
in the falling motion of the raindrop". A statement which
includes intention is complementary to a statement which has
nothing to say about intention. There is no contradiction in
holding both statements as true. In my view, this is always the
case with complementary perspectives on the matter - no mental
tensions arise.
However, one reason why complementarity cannot transfer
easily to the study of origins relates directly to the issue of
purpose and design. Can a statement about undirected
evolutionary change be complementary to a statement about God's
craftsmanship? Can a statement about adaptation to the
environment be complementary to a statement about intelligent
design?
Consider, for example, Proverbs 20:12. "Ears that hear and
eyes that see - the Lord has made them both." I ask this
question to evolutionary biologists: was the ear made for hearing
and the eye for seeing?
I find a tension between purposeful design and the
macroevolutionary theories. Can 'purpose' possibly be
complementary to the idea that these organs are merely
adaptations which have had the effect of increasing our ancestors
chances of passing on their genes? My answer is "no".
Complementarity, which is so simple when applied to the empirical
sciences, becomes extraordinarily complex when applied to the
historical sciences and to creative design. Do others feel this
tension?
LH wrote: "As I said, this is the defect which I believe we
should address most forcefully. Unfortunately, my impression of
Dr. Johnson's writings, and most Progressive Creation/Design
Theory literature in general, is that they address this point
only briefly and in passing. Indeed, some Progressive Creation
literature argues so energetically against macroevolution that
the author leaves the impression that he BELIEVES
"if-macroevolution-then-no-Creator."
I have not noted Phil Johnson acknowledging that the
principle of complementarity does apply to the empirical sciences
- I feel this is an area of ambiguity with him which must leave
TEs very frustrated. However, I have experienced a similar
frustration with TE literature! It seems to me that they have
completely by-passed these issues of purpose, intent and
intelligent design. Yet these are at the heart of objections to
their reconciliation of evolution and biblical creation. It is
time that these issues are faced honestly and openly. [I'm sorry
if some of this ground has been covered in recent mail on this
reflector - time has not prmitted me to digest all of it].
If complementarity is the way forward, we need some clear
answers to these deeply felt concerns. If, on the other hand,
the tension is real, then it is time for theistic evolutionists
to reconsider their position and to address the possibility that
adherents of naturalistic philosophy, who have no place for God,
have promoted evolutionary explanations of origins as "science".
These evolutionary naturalists have an enormous influence: they
have engineered a situation where people who believe in
intelligent design, purpose and meaning in creation, are
relegated to the lunatic fringe of the intellectual world.
LH wrote: "In any reform of "evolutionary literature," defect #1a
must be specifically addressed and refuted first. Otherwise,
subsequent analysis about the inadequacies of certain
macroevolutionary data/methodology will leave the wrong
impression!"
I am not sure about making this particular issue the focus
of our efforts - as everything is interrelated. Nor am I too
worried about leaving a "wrong impression" - the naturalists seem
to put the worst slant on any view which is at variance with
their own. The issues in this debate are far-reaching. The
nature of science needs to be clarified for the intellectual
health of our culture. Whilst naturalism reigns supreme, is it
any wonder that so many feel that science has led to the death
of God? But even more important is the intellectual health of
Christians involved in science: evolutionary ideas have robbed
so many of eyes which can see God's handiwork and which can hear
his voice through the things he has made. Is there purpose and
meaning in the natural world? Was the eye made for seeing and
the ear for hearing? These are simple questions - but they
demand some hard thinking from us.
If you are going to respond to this mail, please note that I'm on
holiday for the rest of this week. Apologies in advance!
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***