Stephen Jones writes:
SJ> I think you have raised an important issue, David. It goes to the
> heart of the Christian church's attitude to its culture. Should the
> church so accommodate to its culture that it becomes indistinguishable
> from it? We are all challenged by Jesus to be "lights" in our
> particular spheres (Mt 5:14-16), to have a distinctive "flavour" (Mt
> 5:13), and not to "conform...to the pattern of this world" (Rom 12:2).
> Are Theistic Evolutionists really facing up to that challenge to be
> radically different?
and in another post:
> GS>1. Truth is more important than impact. If the TE position is correct -
> >and they believe it is -, the TE people are doing the right thing.
SJ> Unfortunately, just believing one is "correct" is not necessarily the same
> as "doing the right thing". Many of us believe that TE is too caught up
> in the modern-day spirit of naturalism, and is not open to the
> possibility of God intervening in nature at strategic points in a direct
> way.
Sorry, Stephen, I'm calling a penalty on that play. My pet peeve's fur is
standing on end. :-)
You raised useful points, but the way you made them bothers me a great
deal. Consider how these parallel statements sound to you: "Are
Progressive Creationists really facing up to the challenge of integrating
their faith with our knowledge of physics and biology?" or "Many of us
believe that PC is too caught up in the old god-of-the-gaps theology, and
is not open to the possibility of God working effectively through the
natural processes he designed."
Blech. Statements like these come too close to the old political ploy of
ascribing ignoble motives to one's opponents. It's not a useful critique,
and it doesn't help dialog.
------
Enough about style, back to substance.
SJ> Many of us believe that TE is too caught up
> in the modern-day spirit of naturalism, and is not open to the
> possibility of God intervening in nature at strategic points in a direct
> way.
Then let me try to reassure all readers, once again, and hopefully never
again. Theistic evolution (as properly distinguished from Deism) is
open to the possibility of God intervening at strategic points. All
"Theistic Realists" agree that there are times to actively propose
supernatural intervention, and times to refrain from doing so. (That's in
Ecclesiastes somewhere, isn't it? :-)
PC and TE agree that God often achieves his purpose through natural
processes.
PC and TE agree that natural processes seem to have been used for the
formation of the universe's physical forms.
PC and TE agree that natural processes seem to be used for a host of
(poorly understood) present-day biological phenomena.
PC and TE agree that "direct, supernatural intervention" is an important
element of salvation history.
PC and TE agree that direct, supernatural intervention is an important
element (along with the "natural" psychological elements) of spiritual
transformations today.
The only area of disagreement is in certain areas of the formative history
of the world's biological forms: formation of first life, higher taxa,
and novel features. PC believes it is best (theologically and
scientifically) to propose supernatural intervention at these points. TE
believes it is best (theologically and scientifically) to propose natural
processes. It's not a question of "open." It's a question of "best" in
this particular instance.
--------------------
SJ> Are Theistic Evolutionists really facing up to that challenge to be
> radically different?
I share David Tyler's perception that most theistic evolutionists aren't
doing enough to challenge philosophical Naturalism in the academy.
(Although I can name some noteable exceptions.) I would be happy to
discuss possible reasons for why this might be, and how to change it.
In my opinion, having a "theology tainted by philosophical Naturalism" is
NOT a factor. That is a mis-characterization of the situation.
The problem, I believe, lies in a loss of understanding for the _proper_
place of "naturalistic" knowledge in a Theistic/Christian framework. (Do
we see the law of supply and demand as nothing but the natural result of
human economic desires, or could it also be a tool God uses to order
society, to provide most if its needs efficiently, and to guide many
people to jobs which match their talents?) The problem also lies in a
failure to understand the principle of complementarity in some cases (How
many of us are prepared, at a moment's notice, to carefully explain how
scientific chance differs from metaphysical Chance?) and an inability to
express the principle in other cases (We believe that the laws of orbital
mechanics display the wisdom and economy of the Creator, but can we
eloquently express that to our colleagues?). As Christian academicians,
we fail to discuss and practice these ideas as much as we should. And
then there's just plain cowardice; I know I've missed opportunities
because of that.
That's on the ledger against theistic evolutionists. But then there are
the shrill voices of anti-evolution (and too frequently, anti-science and
anti-intellectualism) from within the church, which usually dominates the
tone of the debate, lumps TE in with "the enemy" instead of listening to
its cautionary notes, and leaves us at a loss as to how to enter the
debate, fearing our credibility has been damaged before we could even say
anything.
So those are some factors, as I perceive them, in our failure to
adequately challenge Naturalism. Comments? Ideas?
Loren Haarsma