>It is a
>perfectly CONSISTENT position to hold that God has brought an
>evolving world into existence, and that processes of evolutionary
>change have operated under his sovereign control to bring about
>all living things and man. The problem that many of us have is
>that this does not conform to God's revelation about what he has
>done,
Fair enough to this point -- so long as you recognize that other Christians
may come to different conclusions. While I disagree, I respect your right
to
draw different conclusions about issues that aren't IMO Christian essentials.
>nor does it satisfy our scientific judgments as to the
>significance of the evidence.
But when you add the above, I have to wonder, "Is he adding this because he
has genuine problems with the science involved, or because he wants
something to bolster what his faith and his reading of the Scriptures tell
him?" One can raise any number of valid issues of philosophy, methodology,
inference etc. with evolution theorists. Christians can and should raise
valid scientific issues with scientists of all stripes. But you should be
sure that your motive is purely to raise issues that if resolved will
advance science, and not to "prove" what your faith tells you must be true.
Science can be wrong, and our interpretation of Scripture can be wrong.
As long as Christians participate in debates recognizing that fact, they
will be appreciated. But if the debators on the evolution side for example
suspect that the Christians are simply trying to bolster what their
interpretation of Scripture tells them must be true, the Christians'
motives will be suspect.
>
>DT: > I would suggest that "Darwinian design" has an appropriate
>analogy with artificial selection ...>
>BH: > I guess I don't understand what you mean by Darwinian
>design.>
>DT I was responding to a comment from Loren which I thought was
>related to human engineers using darwinian principles to optimise
>their designs. Objects being designed are provided with the
>means to adapt to the environment, and the engineers select those
>characters which emerge as superior from the testing process.
OK. You're talking about various randomization appraches to design,
including genetic algorithms. This sort of thing has been done, for a
number of years, with quite a bit of progress made recently due both to
improvements in computing power and improvements in the theory. I'm not
sure the analogy with artificial selection is a good one. Genetic
algorithms are used to perform very complex optimizations on multimodal
surfaces with beaucoups constraints. Sometimes suboptimal solutions are
known, and frequently genetic algorithms break into entirely different
regions in the parameter space, giving unexpected improvements. You really
do get beneficial "mutations".
>
>DT: > The TE position MUST eventually blur the distinction
>between creation and providence - but these are not blurred in
>the Scriptures.>
>BH: > Not necessarily. If by creation the Scriptures mean the
>actual fabrication of all the structures which make up nature,
>then TE would be blurring creation and providence.
> This is how I understand creation.
It seems to me that in order to reconcile our interpretations with known
data from astronomy, geology and biology, we ought at least to consider
other interpretations of Scripture. Such interpretations must of course
endeavor to preserve what the Scriptures are telling us. If you consider
the Scriptures to be a textbook on astronomy, physics, chemistry and
biology, you would be unwilling to deviate from the young-earth orthodoxy.
But it seems to me that the important theme of Scripture is who God is, how
man relates to him, the sinfulness of man and how man can be redeemed.
Changes in how we interpret the passages that say something about the age
of the earth don't affect that.
>
>BH: > However, suppose from God's point of view the creation was
>accomplished when He issued the commands. In this scheme God's
>creative role would comprise the design of nature and the setting
>in motion of the various processes which would carry out his
>will. Providence would comprise His oversight of the development
>of nature, which would include any kind of interaction God
>desires to conduct with nature.>
> My problem with this is not a philosophical one, but a
>Scriptural one. I cannot reconcile this scenario with the text
>of Genesis 1, nor with numerous other references to creation
>(such as Hebrews 11:3).
I think Heb 11:3 supports my position quite well. "Prepared by the _word_
of God (there He is again, orchestrating everything with His word) so that
what is seen was not made out of what is visible". It doesn't say _when_
creation took place. From God's point of view, it may well have been done
when He issued the commands to His exquisitely balanced nature to bring
about everything He had in mind to be made (not created -- that had already
happened) From a design perspective, we humans sometimes say the same
thing. When is a Pierre Cardin design "created"? Surely not when it's cut
and stitched together at the clothing factory. Usually by creation in that
sense we mean Cardin's process of converting a gleam in his eye into the
design for an article of clothing.
>
>BH: >I would say Phil speaks from a philosophical perspective,
>not a scientific one. And what he says in the philosophical
>realm is worth listening to.>
> I do not wish to differ from this, except to add that Phil
>Johnson is making a serious effort to talk the language of
>science and many of his points are made more effectively than
>related points made by scientists.
Phil's great strength as I see it is that he can argue with someone like
Will Provine and come away friends with him. That's because Phil makes his
philosophical and logical points compllingly and clearly, and because he
treats his opponent with respect. Would that all Christians witnessing to
scientists would do the same. However, merely trying to use the language
of the scientists is not enough. I think he's more effective when he
sticks to logic and philosophy.
>
David continues
For years I have heard the view expressed that we must
>distinguish between evolutionism (the philosophy of naturalism)
>and evolutionary theory (the science). I have grown in the
>conviction that the distinction is unwarranted. This is what
>Phil Johnson is saying better than anyone else I've come across.
Like many generalizations, this one can be misleading. Part of the problem
comes from the fact that evolution theorists have redefined evolution as
variations in the distribution of alleles in a population from generation
to generation. Defined this way evolution is an established fact which can
be demonstrated in lab work and field work. "But," you may say, "all they
can demonstrate that way is microevolution." True. But no one has yet
been able to demonstrate that there are any barriers between microevolution
and macroevolution. The fossil record is a piece of evidence that
evolutionists bring up to support macroevolution. Given the fact of
microevolution, the absence of barriers and the fossil record, they believe
they have a sound case. But creationists point to the gaps in the fossil
record and say, "Look, there's the proof of the barriers staring you in the
face." Or they point to the gaps between extant life forms and say the
same thing. I don't think that examining historical evidence is going to
resolve the dispute. That's why Art Battson's plea that evolution
researchers should look for the barriers is so appropriate. If a
theoretical barrier can be found, you can prove your point. But you need to
do some real research.
> I suppose I have a personal reason for being disillusioned
>by this distinction between evolution the science and evolution
>the philosophy. In the UK, TE is very strong. The TE community
>is not short of leaders in the scientific world. Yet although
>these people warn about the dangers of evolutionism, they do it
>almost entirely to the Christian community!
Perhaps because the Christians will listen but the scientists won't? I
hope TE's when they talk to their fellow scientists are talking about what
they _will_ listen to, and praying that the Lord will provide them the
opportunity to tell them about Jesus Christ, as well as prepare their
colleagues' hearts to listen. The most useful thing a Christian, scientist
or otherwise, can do for someone outside the Christian community is to
introduce him to Jesus Christ. The reason evolutionism is bad is that it
is a philosophy of men that tries to do away with the need for the
transcendant -- in particular it tries to do away with the need for Jesus
Christ. I would rather lead a man to Christ and find out that he remained
an evolutionist to the end of his days than to disabuse him of a false
"faith" in eovlution and never have led him to Christ. When people become
Christians, the Lord reorders their priorities, including their beliefs
about things like evolution. So, logically, (and Scripturally) what we
need to do first with unbelievers is lead them to Christ.
>They have never
>grasped the nettle firmly and they have been extraordinarily
>quiet in challenging the scientific world about the adoption of
>naturalism as a methodological principle.
Brian Harper quoted Owen Gingerich in a response to one of my posts last
week, and that quotation says what I want to say here far better than I
can. If you can't find that post I still have it around and will be glad
to forward it to you. Essentially he said that one's Christian beliefs
shouldn't stop investigation at a particular point. At some point in my
investigation of a phenomenon I may conclude that it's so totally beyond my
ability to understand that I can only attribute it to God's actions. But
if I'm a scientist I'm still going to want to study that phenomenon, and if
tomoorrow I understand what I didn't today, if I'm a Christian I'm not
going to rule out God's activity because I now understand what I attributed
to him yesterday.
>In doing so, the
>Christian church in the UK is failing to address fundamental
>issues in our culture. Perhaps this experience colours my
>thinking . . .
>
It seems to me that the church can address fundamental issues (the need to
know Jesus Christ, the need to trust in his finished work on the cross, the
need to obey the will of God,...) without getting sidetracked into issues
of how scientific data is interpreted. Of course the church ought to
attack misplaced science. Everytime Richard Dawkins says atheism is the
only viable position for a scientist a chorus of Christians should say,
"He's a scientist, not a theologian, and he's stepping outside his area of
competence.")
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)