In response to David Tyler, Stephen Jones wrote:
> It is fairly clear that Progressive Creation can argue that
> because of God's intervention at strategic points, if the "tape"
> of life is re-run, man would arise again.
>
> However, it is not clear that on a Theistic Evolution view (where
> God works solely through the same naturalistic processes as
> Gould believes in), that if the tape was re-played, man would
> arise?
>
> It seems there are two TE's. In one, God sets up the conditions and
> nature finds its own way. In the other, God is controlling the
> outcome, so that the tape of life, if re-run, comes out the same.
>
> Comments?
Oh, you knew I'd comment, didn't you, Stephen? ;-)
(Sorry for the delay of several weeks. I've been way too busy lately.)
Comment 1: What would happen if ANY stochastic and/or quantum mechanical
process were "re-run?" This question raises _scientific_ questions about
the nature of stochastic and non-deterministic processes, and
_theological_ questions about God's governance of creation.
Here is a parallel question to the biological evolution one: Would our
solar system and planet turn out the same way if the tape of stellar
evolution were re-run? (Would the moon be the same size, the continents
be in the same place, etc?)
It seems there are two PC's. In one, God sets up the conditions and
nature finds its own way. (In other words, God waits for stellar
evolution to provide a suitable planet on which to introduce life.) In
the other, God is controlling the outcome, so that the tape of
stellar/planetary evolution, if re-run, comes out the same.
Do you choose one of those two positions, or are you agnostic? If you
choose the second position, do you reject the first position completely,
or do you think (as I suspect many PC's do) that the first is within the
realm of acceptable.
------------
Comment 1a: I'm going to say this before you do: Although "letting
nature find its own way" _might_ be an acceptable option for stellar
evolution, origin of first life, maybe even evolution of plants and
animals, it becomes theologically unacceptable in the origin of humans.
Even if you adopt an evolutionary view of human origins, at an absolute
MINIMUM, (theologically acceptable minimum, that is), God's personal
interaction and acts of revelation with developing humans must have played
an important role.
------------------------
Comment 2: As for re-playing the tape of life, there are at least THREE
TE positions. In the first {TE1}, God controls every detail of every
"chance" event, so re-playing the tape of life would turn out EXACTLY the
same, in every detail. In the second {TE2}, God intervenes at strategic
points (in ways which are "guiding" but not obviously "miraculous") so
that if the tape were replayed, humans would rise again. In the third
{TE3}, God was pleased to let his creation "do its thing" without
intervening, until such time as _intelligent_ creatures started to arise,
after which he began to appropriately "intervene" to ensure they would be
ready for his personal revelation.
-----
Comment 2a: It seems to me that there is a continuum of positions
between TE2 and your version of PC.
I made this point in an earlier post. I was REALLY hoping you'd respond
to it then. Here's your second chance. :-)
If God proscriptively determines the outcome of "chance" events, then
God could guide evolution along a specific pathway: for example, the
appearance of a new species within an isolated subpopulation of an old
species. No _single_ "chance event" (a mutation, or an environmental
event, or whatever) would have been identifiable as a supernatural
event. If the _cumulative_ effect of these events demonstrate obvious
"guidance" (e.g. in just a few generations a novel, complex
morphological feature developed requiring many mutational steps but
without any selective advantage for each step along the way), this
would fit the "Progressive Creation" model. On the other hand, if the
cumulative effect of all of these "chance events" does NOT demonstrate
obvious "guidance" (e.g. one mutation in a developmental program gene
caused a significant (though not very deleterious) morphological change
which was then acted upon by "ordinary" microevolutionary processes to
stabilize a new and significantly altered form) -- even though God
proscriptive determined each little event along the way -- this would
fit the "Theistic Evolution" model.
Now it seems to me that: (1) There is a good deal of potential overlap
and "middle ground" available between these two. (2) Evolutionary
biology does not yet have the empirical predictive capabilities to
distinguish between these.
-----------
Comment 2b: I believe there is a fairly obvious continuum between
positions TE3 and TE2 above. The difference between them is not _whether_
God intervened but _when_ and _how often_. I believe there may also be a
continuum between positions TE1 and TE2. (Perhaps "continuum" isn't even
the right idea. The positions may really be the same thing from different
perspectives.) This leads us to....
----------------------
Comment 3: Stephen, please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my
impression that one of the major (theological) reasons for your choosing
PC over TE is that you see a strong dichotomy between "natural" events and
"divinely intervened" events. (I also suspect you share this view with
other noteable PC's like Phillip Johnson.)
But this strong dichotomy puzzles me because (1) You agree that natural
laws do not operate independently from God's will; (2) You agree that the
outcome of "chance" events are determined by God; (3) While there are many
recorded miracles which are unexplainable by natural mechanisms, there are
also many events which would seem to happen by natural processes and would
not be distinguishable as "divine intervention" without the guidance of
revelation. (e.g. Joseph's years of abundance and drought)
Do you make a strong distinction between these latter "miraculous" events
and God's providential care? Do you make a strong distinction between
God's providential care and "natural" events?
Thanks for your time an thoughts. (BTW, I'm not restricting these
questions to Stephen. Anyone may join in. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... No, but the truth is more complicated." | Loren Haarsma
--Dad (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu