On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 16:13:39 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
>ABSTRACT: (1) We once again face the charge that TE is not "open" to
>divine intervention. (2) Discuss how and why TE fails to adequately stand
>up to Naturalism in the academy.
>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.
LH>Sorry, Stephen, I'm calling a penalty on that play. My pet peeve's
>fur is standing on end. :-)
Loren, please do *not* interpret my critiques of TE as personal
attacks on TE's. I apologise if I have inadvertently given offense to
you by a bad choice of phrase. No such offense is ever intended.
But I can only go on what I see. Most if not all the TE's on the
Reflector seem to be less than enthusiatic about "God intervening in
nature at strategic points". Where they do concede it, it seems to be
only the bare minimum. Every effort is made to give evolution the
benefit of the doubt and downplay creation. I can only conclude it is
due to a "modern-day spirit of naturalism".
LH>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?"
I think they are. I have no problem with "integrating" my "faith"
with "our knowledge of physics and biology".
LH>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."
The "god-of-the-gaps theology" is IMHO a furphy promoted by
naturalism. It begs the question by assuming that there are no gaps.
Moreland answers this objection:
"Objection 1. The theistic science model utilizes an epistemically
inappropriate "God-of-the-gaps" strategy in which God only acts when
there are gaps in nature; one appeals to God merely to fill gaps in
our scientific knowledge of naturalistic mechanisms. These gaps are
used in apologetic, natural-theology arguments to support Christian
theism. Scientific progress is making these gaps increasingly rare,
and thus this strategy is not a good one.
Reply. First, the [theistic science] model does not limit God's
causal activity to gaps. God is constantly active in sustaining and
governing the universe. Nature is not autonomous. Moreover, theistic
science need not have any apologetical aim at all. A Christian theist
may simply believe that he or she should consult all we know or have
reason to believe is true-including theological beliefs-in forming,
evaluating and testing scientific hypotheses and in solving scientific
problems. And even if someone uses theistic science with apologetical
intentions, that person would not need to limit his or her
apologetical case to gaps. Among other things, the model merely
recognizes a distinction between primary and secondary causes (however
much this needs further refinement) and goes on to assert that (at
least) the former could have scientifically testable implications,
irrespective of the apologetic intentions of such a recognition.
Second, the model does not appeal to or attempt to explain in light of
God and his activities to cover our ignorance, but only when good
theological or philosophical reasons are present, such as when certain
theological or philosophical reasons would cause us to expect a
discontinuity in nature where God acted via primary causation (e.g.,
the origin of the universe, first life, basic "kinds" of life).
Third, even if the gaps in naturalistic scientific explanations are
getting smaller, this does not prove that there are no gaps at all.
It begs the question to argue that just because most alleged gaps turn
out to be explainable in naturalistic terms without gaps at that level
of explanation, all alleged gaps will turn out this way. After all,
it is to be expected that gaps will be few. Gaps due to primary
divine agency are miracles, and they are in the minority for two
reasons: (1) God's usual way of operating (though I acknowledge the
need for further clarity regarding this notion) is through secondary
causes. Primary causal gaps are God's extraordinary, unusual way of
operating; by definition, these will be few and far between. (2) The
evidential or sign value of a miraculous gap arises most naturally
against a backdrop where the gaps are rare, unexpected and have a
religious context (there are positive theological reasons to expect
their presence)."
(Moreland J.P., "Theistic Science & Methodological Naturalism",
in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, Inter
Varsity Press, Illinois, p59)
LH>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.
I said nothing about "ignoble motives". I am critique TE *ideas*
alone. TE's do a fair bit of criticism of YEC and PC positions. Is
TE itself exempt from criticsm? :-)
LH>Enough about style, back to substance.
I thought it *was* "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.
LH>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? :-)
I have seen little evidence of this Loren, except in the case of
the creation of man and/or the origin of life. TE seems to want
to minimise God's direct intervention, whereas YEC and PC wish
to maximise it?
LH>PC and TE agree that God often achieves his purpose through
>natural processes.
Agreed.
LH>PC and TE agree that natural processes seem to have been used for
>the formation of the universe's physical forms.
Agreed. Except this PC would believe that God may have been directly
involved in the preparing of the Earth for life and man.
LH>PC and TE agree that natural processes seem to be used for a host
>of (poorly understood) present-day biological phenomena.
PC draws a distinction between Operation Science and Origin Science.
PC would not expect God's direct intervention in the ordinary
operation of nature.
LH>PC and TE agree that "direct, supernatural intervention" is an
>important element of salvation history.
Good! :-)
LH>PC and TE agree that direct, supernatural intervention is an
>important element (along with the "natural" psychological elements)
>of spiritual transformations today.
Agreed, although I would be cautious about accepting such stories.
LH>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.
I would like to know "theologically" why TE proposes "natural
processes" rather than "supernatural intervention" for the "formation
of first life, higher taxa, and novel features"?
>SJ> Are Theistic Evolutionists really facing up to that challenge to
>be radically different?
LH>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.
The first step is for Christians to reject all traces of
"philosophical Naturalism" in their own thinking! :-)
LH>In my opinion, having a "theology tainted by philosophical
>Naturalism" is NOT a factor. That is a mis-characterization of the
>situation.
Along with Phil Johnson, I disagree:
"I do not think that the mind can serve two masters, and I am
confident that whenever the attempt is made, naturalism in the end
will be the true master and theism will have to abide by its dictates.
If the blind watchmaker thesis is true, then naturalism deserves to
rule, but I am addressing those who think the thesis is false, or at
least are willing to consider the possibility that it may be false.
Such persons need to be willing to challenge false doctrines, not on
the basis of prejudice or blind adherence to a tradition, but with
clear-minded, reasoned arguments. They also need to be working on a
positive understanding of a theistic view of reality, one that allows
natural science to find its proper place as an important but not
all-important part of the life of the mind." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin
on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois,
p169)
LH>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?)
I think there is a confusing of "philosophical Naturalism" and
"naturalistic knowledge". The later is a part of Christian
supernaturalism, but the former denies the supernatural.
LH>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.
Haven't we all? :-(
LH>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.
I agree that there has been a reaction against evolution (including
theistic evolutionists) by creationists. But this is understandable
when one considers the attacks by evolutionists on creationists, and
the devastation that the Darwinist theory of evolution has wrought on
the Christian church and society.
LH>So those are some factors, as I perceive them, in our failure to
>adequately challenge Naturalism. Comments? Ideas?
Thank you Loren for your irenic responses. :-)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------