David, I like the style and content of your writing! And in just a few
exchanges, we have got to the nub of one of the central points of
contention between Progressive Creation and Evolutionary Creation. (And
we have done so graciously. :-)
Let me start with some all-too-quick answers to some of your questions
(followed by some longer comments).
DT> 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.
Yes, evolution has been much muddied (right from the start) with talk of
purposelessness and chance. MUCH, MUCH, MUCH clarification work needs to
be done.
DT> 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. [...]
> 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?
Many theistic evolutionists would say that the outcome of every "chance"
event is determined by God; if this is true, how can evolution be
"undirected"? Other TEs would rather say that God interacts with his
creation within the inherent freedom offered by stocastic processes;
again, evolution is not "undirected."
On another level, it may be that God is pleased, most of the time, to let
his creation "do its thing" without "intervening" -- and he is pleased
with the outcome! This also says something about his craftsmanship.
DT> Can a statement about adaptation to the
> environment be complementary to a statement about intelligent
> design?
Absolutely! Human engineers are just now getting the idea of devices
which can adapt themselves to their environment. The final outcome of
such a process may not have been "designed" in the sense that every detail
was pre-planned (although with God's foreknowledge, this may not be an
issue), but nevertheless the final product is the outcome of an
intelligently designed system, which performed exactly as it was supposed
to do.
DT> I find a tension between purposeful design and the
> macroevolutionary theories. Can 'purpose' possibly be
> complementary to the idea that these organs [eyes and ears] are merely
> adaptations which have had the effect of increasing our ancestors
> chances of passing on their genes? My answer is "no".
Delete the word "merely" from your question, and the way is open to answer
"yes." (To give one example, if the eye really did evolve independently
many times, this suggests that "genomic phase space" was designed
with strong tendencies towards such solutions.)
DT> 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?
Yes.
DT> 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].
These issues are a very important area of concern to me, too. I would
even say that MOST of what I've written, since joining this group last
November, have been directed at those issues. I don't even want to think
about how many hours or kilobytes that adds up to! (Although I don't
regret any of them.)
Part of the source of your frustration, I believe, is that -- speaking
from personal experience -- it is a lot easier for a "theistic
evolutionist" to resolve these issues in his or her OWN mind and faith
than to COMMUNICATE those answers to other, sceptical Christians.
Consider these questions: "What is God's purpose, intent, and providence
-- and how does he accomplish it -- in his governance of the weather? In
the conception event which began my life as a new, genetically unique
human being? In the formation of our sun, our moon, and the earth's
geological features? In the microevolutionary changes we observe in
plants and animals today?" There are good theological answers to these
questions, but very few good theologians write about them in a
scientifically informed way. Most Christian scientists think about them,
and tentatively resolve them to their own satisfaction, but find it much
more difficult to communicate those answers to others. I believe the
answers to those questions open then way to answering questions about
purpose, intent, and intelligent design in macroevolution. But I'm not
surprised if the TE literature you've read fails to spend a great deal of
time on those issues. I know that my own opinions and speculations in
this group have met with less than universal agreement.... ;-)
You are definitely asking the right questions, this group is the right
place for us to wrestle with them.
When I ask that Progressive Creationist literature START by rejecting the
"if-macroevolution-then-no-Creator" hypothesis (rather than implying its
truth by jumping straight to an attack on macroevlution), I guess I'm ALSO
looking for an acknowledgement that (most) Christians who accept
macroevolutionhave have indeed carefully answered these issues to their
satisfaction, and their faith and belief in a loving Creator, Designer,
and Caretaker is all the stronger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't ever speak more clearly than you think." | Loren Haarsma
--attributed to Neils Bohr | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu