On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:16:50 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: What would happen if evolution were re-run? Well, what
>would happen if ANY stochastic process were re-run? There are
>several TE (or PC) answers to these questions. Is there really a
>strong dichotomy between "natural" events and "divinely intervened"
>events?
LH>In response to David Tyler, Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>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?
LH>Oh, you knew I'd comment, didn't you, Stephen? ;-) (Sorry for the
>delay of several weeks. I've been way too busy lately.)
Good to see you back Loren! Are you Glenn's holiday relief? :-)
LH>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.
Indeed. But TE has to be absolutely deterministic if it maintains
that if the tape was re-run then purely natural forces would produce
the same result. Consider Acanthostega. Science believes that it
grew a leg from a fin through millions of years before it needed it
and by a "lucky coincidence" the leg was useful for another purpose -
walking on land (Zimmer C., "Coming Onto the Land", Discover, June
1995, p127). Without that "lucky coincidence" we humans would not be
here. Consider the random events (asteroid collisions?) that are
thought to have caused the mammal-like reptiles to evolve into mammals
(Kemp T., "The Reptiles that Became Mammals", New Scientist, vol. 92,
4 March 1982, p583).
If TE maintains that these seemingly random events were programed
into the natural laws of the Universe from day 1 to achieve exactly
the end they did achieve, then they must believe in an extreme
determinism. PC would not reject this as impossible, but would
rather interpret these so-called random events (if they in fact
occurred) as the result of special interventions of God.
LH>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?)
I believe that God directly intervened to shape the Earth-moon
sub-system. Hugh Ross, on his Reasons To Believe home page
(http://www.dnai.com/~westley/), claims that the moon was the result
of an asteroid collision which also blew of the Earth's original
poisonous atmosphere. This would have required precise control to
achieve that result. Both the moon and the removal of the
early atmosphere were essential to life later developing.
LH>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.
I don't know about other PC views, but I would prefer the idea of God
actively intervening in the creation of the Earth and life, against
a backdrop of normal natural laws. I would not believe that the tape
of life would produce the same result, unless God intervened.
I would doubt that the first view is PC. It sounds like TE or even DE.
LH>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.
I was "agnostic" about larger questions that you asked in an earlier
post re the universe, because Gn 1 is concerned mainly with the Earth.
However, I lean to God's direct involvement in creating the conditions
for life on Earth.
LH>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.
Agreed. But as I have said before, I believe that God could have
personally intervened in the origin of life and major events of
biological history as outlined in Gn 1.
>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.
I regard {TE2} as PC. That is close to or the same as my position.
Perhaps I am a TE and don't realise it! :-) The first {TE1} is TE.
The third option {TE3} seems a bit arbitrary.
LH>Comment 2a: It seems to me that there is a continuum of positions
>between TE2 and your version of PC.
I think TE2 *is* my position of PC! I don't really hold to classical
PC where God created whole creatures de novo progressively in a sort
of extended Fiat Creationism. Gn 1 reveals a combination of
natural-supernatural events. I like Ramm's distinction between
horizontal and vertical:
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and biological
experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical
radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give rise to
several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of the
unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal
radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the
theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological record are gaps
because vertical progress takes place only by creation." (Ramm B.
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955, Paternoster,
London, p191)
The "fiat creation" here could be exceedingly minute. A series of
precisely targeted point mutations causing a fin to grow into a leg?
A slight deviation of an asteroids course to collide with the early
Earth at just the right angle and speed so a large piece is blown-off
and forms the moon, orbiting the Earth at just the right distance. It
would be even more elegant if the same event caused a slight tilt to
cause seasons as well as caused the Earth's orbit to become circular?
LH>I made this point in an earlier post. I was REALLY hoping you'd
>respond to it then. Here's your second chance. :-)
I thought I *did* respond! Sorry if I overlooked it. :-)
LH>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.
I don't claim that man could ever identify God's interventions. They
could be much more subtle than that. If we were watching Acanthostega
we would not see the genetic engineering that would cause its
offspring to produce a strange fin that would become over time (and
subsequent generations), the first leg. God only needs to make the
minimum change to achieve His end. He does not need to produce a
hopeful monster such as Goldschmidt's naturalism needed.
LH>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.
Agreed. Even some "selective advantage" would be OK. Natural causes
are OK within PC, as long as the decisive factor (the vertical
increment) was due to God's direct intervention.
LH> 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.
But I understand that these "developmental program genes" are
extremely complex, and the probability of an undirected random
mutation causing any significant improvement is zero. And one would
not be enough. You need a series of them, perhaps thousands, in
precisely the right order. What would have been the good if
Acanthostega got the first mutation and another species altogether got
the second? Or if Acanthostega got the mutations in the wrong order?
" Further studies are needed to convince scientists that Duboule and
his colleagues have correctly solved the fins to-feet riddle. Other
factors could be involved as well, including homeobox genes that are
not Hox genes (that is, they do not affect the overall structure of an
animal)....The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy
conceals enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that
the Hox genes and the non-Hox homeobox genes are not independent
agents but members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and myriad
others will change as well-and not necessarily for the better. Thus
dreams of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what
scientists call a "hopeful monster"-such as a fish with feet-are
likely to remain elusive. Scientists, as Duboule observes, are still
far from reproducing in a laboratory the biochemical are that nature
has taken millions of years to accomplish." (J. Madeleine Nash,
Chicago, "Where Do Toes Come From?", TIME, August 7,1995, p69)
LH>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.
Agreed. In fact it may never have. Jastrow's nightmare about
scientists scaling last peak and finding theologians already there
may apply? :-)
LH>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....
Perhaps.
LH>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.)
The real reason is that the Bible reveals the Lord as a God who
intervenes in history and changes it, according to His eternal
purpose.
LH>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)
No doubt. But I don't believe that naturalistic evolution has made
its case by a long shot, and therefore a TE that relies on natural
causes alone fails along with it.
LH>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?
I do make a distinction between creation and providence, based on
Gn 2:1-3 where creation is said to have been "completed" (Gn 2:1)
and "finished" (Gn 2:2).
LH>Thanks for your time an thoughts. (BTW, I'm not restricting these
>questions to Stephen. Anyone may join in. :-)
Now you've done it! Groan. :-)
God bless.
Stephen