--------------------
Steven Jones asked:
> 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"?
(Thanks for asking! This gives me an opportunity to pull together ideas
which I have written and developed throughout the past year. In addition
to what I write here, I would refer you to Howard VanTill's writings on
St. Basil and St. Augustine.)
(Quick note: I am not writing this to re-open debate on each of these
points. I am writing to demonstrate that TE reasoning is based upon
Christian doctrines, and NOT upon philosophical naturalism.)
--------------
1. A self-consistent hermeneutics of Genesis 1 implies that God used
similar methods to form both the physical structures and the biological
structures of creation.
We have good reason to believe that God used natural processes over
billions of years, without detectable supernatural intervention, to create
the sun, moon, stars, the earth's land, ocean, and atmosphere. It is
therefore consistent hermeneutically to hypothesize that God also used
natural processes in biological history. Given our natural-processes
interpretation of "... let dry ground appear," it seems arbritrary to
interpret, "Let the earth bring forth..." as REQUIRING detectable
supernatural intervention for the formation of first life, higher taxa,
and novel features.
2. Scriptures use similar language to describe God's creative activity and
his providential care --- which is typically exercised via natural
processes.
Jesus spoke of God "feeding ... the birds of the air" and "clothing the
grass of the field." We believe that God exercises this providential care
by his governance over, and subtle guidance of, natural processes, rather
than by supernatural intervention. Numerous poetic passages in the Old
Testament simultaneously praise God for both his creative acts in forming
the world and his providential care over the world today; the language of
tehse passages draws little or no distinction between creative and
providential acts. This gives us reason to think God might have governed
formative natural history (both physical and biological) the same way he
governs it today --- through natural processes.
3. God usually provides for us through natural processes, rather than
supernatural events, in order to make our faith more deep and real, so
that we see God in EVERY event and not just the supernatural. It
would seem to work at cross-purposes for God to use repeated (detectable)
supernatural intervention biological history.
If God's providential care over our daily lives occurred via specific and
obvious supernatural acts, we would be strongly tempted to think of God as
a "quid pro quo" god. (Job's friends seemed to think about God this way.
This also seems to be the basis of most ancient and modern idolotries.)
God did miraculously provide for his people's physical needs on certain
occasions (manna for the Israelites in the desert, Jesus' feeding of the
5000). While they rationally acknowledged the miracles as coming from
God, their spiritual responses were hardly ideal. I wonder if we would
have done any better. Rationality is only ONE important aspect of our
human nature. By providing for nearly all our needs via the natural order
of his creation, I believe that God is inviting us to realize that ALL
things, big and small, come from him. He is inviting us to stop running
after what we eat, drink, and wear, and instead to seek first his kingdom
and his righteousness.
This is not the same as God "hiding" from us. While God cares for us
through natural processes, he also REVEALS to believers, in clear words,
that he is acting through these natural processes. I believe that God is
teaching us that he is present in _everything_ which happens to us, not
just the obviously supernatural events.
If God repeatedly used scientifically detectable supernatural intervention
in biological history (e.g. to create new lifeforms and biological
novelty), the temptation would be to see God as acting _only_ in those
supernatural acts, rather than as sovereignly governing the entire
process. (In the development of the galaxies, stars, and plantets, where
we find no detectable supernatural interventions, we DO understand God to
be sovereignly governing the entire process.)
4. God has not provided irrefutable proof of his existence through other
areas of natural philosophy or through physical religious artifacts; it
seems contradictory to expect such proof in biological developmental
history.
God could provide proof of his existence in the physical world. God also
could have insured that certain historical artifacts (Noah's ark, the ark
of the covenant) would survive till today. He has not done so. Although
natural philosophy and rational scholarship have a role to play in our
religious lives, it seems that God wishes to de-emphasize those as a basis
of our faith; rather, God emphasizes the recorded testimony of Biblical
revelation (point 6 below), the work of the Spirit in the church, and the
work of the Spirit in our own lives.
Scientists may eventually understand evolutionary biology and molecular
biology well enough to establish firm "limits" on evolution's efficacy ---
limits which preclude the production of higher taxa and biological
novelty; but if God wanted to give us empirical evidence for his creative
activity in the universe, this seems an unusual place to put it. Natural
philosophy does not give us such empirical evidence for God's activity in
other areas, why should we expect it in evolutionary biology?
5. For his good pleasure, God usually achieves his purposes in the natural
world through the use of natural mechanisms; it seems uncharacteristic for
God to grant his biological creation the ability to adapt significantly,
but withhold from it the ability to evolve novelty.
The joy which we humans experience when we create something complex and
functional -- which can accomplish what we desire with only minimal and
subtle input (e.g. an automatic loom; a computer program which can perform
many useful tasks with minimal input, instead of needing to re-write the
operating system each time) -- may reflect something of our Creator's
nature. Also, God may in some sense respect his creation, as he respects
us, as something _other_ than himself, a respect which implies granting it
a certain degree of freedom to be itself.
God gave his physical creation the ability, solely through the natural
mechanisms he designed, to evolve from nearly uniform hydrogen/helium to
complex stars and planets full of interesting chemicals and capable of
supporting life. God has also given his biological creation significant
ability to survive and adapt through microevolution. It is therefore
reasonable to hypothesize that God also granted his creation the ability
to increase biological complexity through natural mechanisms.
6. The general character of biblical miracles is markedly different from
the description of biological creation in Genesis 1.
For the purpose of this argument, let's define miracles as supernatural
interventions which cannot be explained by natural processes (but which
might also employ some natural mechanisms). Events in the Bible which are
clearly identified as miracles are often intended to demonstrate, before
witnesses, that God is supreme and that there are no other gods (e.g. the
miracles of Moses, Elijah, and Daniel). Jesus claimed that his miracles
proved that he was doing his Father's will. At other times, miracles were
used to confirm a divine promise, to punish disobedient people during a
critical period in salvation history, or as a special act of compassion.
In all these cases, miracles served to firmly establish the accompanied
_spoken_ words as coming from God.
The miraculous creation of the universe itself is obviously a special
case. But how would the supposed supernatural interventions in biological
history fit into this picture of biblical miracles? The text of Genesis 1
("Let the earth bring forth...") do not clearly identify these events as
supernatural, especially in light of our interpretation of the formation
of the sun, moon, stars, ocean, atmosphere, etc. (point 1 above).
Given the differences between the descriptions of biblical miracles and
the description of biological formation in Genesis 1, I see no
hermeneutical reason to presuppose that the development of first life,
higher taxa, and biological novelty MUST include supernatural
intervention.
7. The natural processes which we believe are responsible for the
formation of creation's physical forms (the sun, moon, stars, and the
earth's land, atmosphere, and ocean) are still happening today. This
gives us good reason to attempt to reconstruct biological formative
history through the biological processes which are still operating today.
8. We already have a theological perspective which we apply to our
scientific study of so many areas of the natural world: divine governance
of natural processes. This establishes God's sovereignty over the ENTIRE
process. If we ascribe "supernatural intervention" to the areas of first
life and biological novelty, we create an atmosphere of debate over WHICH
steps in the chain are God's creative activity and which "aren't."
There is so much genetic homology between related lifeforms that common
ancestry is positively suggested by the data. If each lifeform was
created by fiat, the genetic similarities between them stray uncomfortably
close to God creating an "appearance of common ancestry," similar to the
"appearance of age" problem.
It is possible that God created new lifeforms by combining common ancestry
with miraculous intervention. Each intervention was subtle, each "jump"
was small, but the cumulative effect is supposed to clearly reveal
supernatural guidance. But this still begs the question _which_ steps in
the chain are natural mechanisms, and which are supernatural. Scientists
must still study the genetic and morphological similarities and
differences between species. They must still measure (or at least
speculate about) the adaptive consequences of each genetic difference, and
the way this information was spread through the populations. Should
scientists ascribe to each genetic difference a relative probability that
it could have arisen and spread through natural mechanisms? Should we
ascribe each event with p < .002 to supernatural intervention? The
prospect of this disturbs me, philosophically and theologically. It
produces an atmosphere of debate over which steps are evidence of God's
activity, and which "aren't." We may yet discover that the development of
first life (or of certain biological novelties) via natural processes is
staggeringly improbable. It's too soon to tell. Whatever the result, we
must still study all possible "natural" links in the chain.
By contrast, we already have a theological perspective which we apply to
our study of SO MANY areas of the natural world: divine governance of
natural processes. (We even apply this to events, such as earthquakes,
which we formerly thought belonged entirely to "supernatural
intervention.") This is a theological sound and stable perspective to
bring to our study of biological history as well.
9. The beauty and awesomeness of creation is enhanced, not diminished, by
the prospect that God designed natural processes to produce first life and
biological novelty.
10. A consistent view of God's "design" in creation implies that God used
natural processes in biological formative history.
When we talk about God's "design" in the physical world, we do not mean
that God supernaturally assembled the physical forms of the universe.
Rather, we mean that God carefully designed and finely tuned the natural
laws (and the initial conditions) so that the physical forms would develop
through natural processes over time. (One amazing example of this is the
Carbon-12 nuclear resonance. There is an excited state of the C-12
nucleus which makes the cross-section for He-4 + Be-8 fusion fairly large.
When stars nova, they spread a lot of carbon (necessary for life) into the
galaxy. If it weren't for that nuclear resonsance, stars would produce
very little carbon. On the other hand, the O-16 nucleus does not have
such a conveniently located excited state; if it did, most of the C-12
would be depleated.)
When we talk about God's "design" in developmental biology, we do not mean
that God supernaturally assembles each developing embryo. Rather, we mean
that the finely tuned natural processes over time turn a simple zygote
into a complex adult.
It is therefore _consistent_ to see God's "design" in biological history
as being expressed, not through supernatural assembly of biological forms,
but through God's carefully designed natural processes which can produce
biological complexity over time.
11. A theistic world view requires, as one component, a proper
understanding and use of "naturalistic knowledge;" this necessarily
includes an attempt to reconstruct natural history. Just as it is true in
"experimental" science, so also it must be true in natural history: a
failure to account theoretically for all of our observations should not
always be seen as a failure of the hypothesis of "natural processes."
It is good and proper for us to study, scientifically, the natural
processes by which God governs the universe. Indeed, it is part of our
commission to "subdue the earth." It is one way we reflect our Creator's
image.
This study cannot be restricted to experimental and observational studies
of the natural processes which occur today. It must, by the necessity of
the discipline and by the necessity of our human nature, be extended to
the study of natural history. There is no sharp demarcation between these
branches of science, and results from one branch inform others.
Our experience as scientists and as Christians, combined with God's
revelation, leads us to believe that God usually acts through the regular
and continuous operation of natural processes in His governance of the
physical and biological world -- not only recently, but throughout human
history; not just locally, but throughout the distant universe. This
gives us a strong philosophical and theological reason for attempting
"historical science." Using the results of measurement science and
observational science, we attempt to reconstruct the developmental history
of the observed system (the cosmos, the solar system, the earth, the
ecosystem, etc.), assuming, wherever possible, that God used the regular
and continuous operation of the SAME natural mechanisms which we see at
work in his present-day governance. When "historical science"
successfully constructs a history which is internally consistent,
theoretically sound, comprehensive in its ability to explain observations,
fruitful in guiding research, and capable of making detailed predictions,
we have a very strong reason for believing that the "history" given to us
by "historical science" is, in fact, a true history. This is very much
the situation for cosmology, stellar evolution, planetary formation, and
the geological history of the earth. The relatively few particular
observations which do not fit an otherwise very successful model are not
seen as evidence of God's miraculous activity in a few instances, but
rather as puzzles to guide future research into understanding natural
mechanisms.
God's miraculous intervention in natural history might be detectable
through "historical science" as a failure of the hypothesis of "the
regular and continuous operation of natural mechanisms over time."
However, just as it is true in experimental science and in observational
science, so also it must be true in origins science: such failures to
account theoretically for all of our observation should not ALWAYS be seen
as a failure of the hypothesis. Other factors must be considered. If
this principle is true in a science such as astronomy, where our
theoretical understanding is strong but some observations are still
puzzling, it must be all the more true in a science such as biology, where
our theoretical understanding of the mechanisms is still fairly weak, but
where nevertheless we believe that God regularly uses those mechanisms in
his present-day governance. The same philosophical and theological
principles applied when evaluating the hypothesis of regular and
continuous operation of natural mechanisms in sciences such as cosmology,
geology, and developmental biology must be consistently applied when
considering the evidence for the development of first life, higher taxa,
and biological novelty.
---------------------------
(Final note: I do not claim that the reasons I give above _decisively_
favor Theistic Evolution over Progressive Creation. Both TE and PC can
offer theological points in their favor. Please don't feel compelled to
respond to each one of my points in turn. Each point CAN be debated back
and forth, some of them are stronger than others, and some of them have
already been debated in this group. I am willing to debate them again,
but that was not my purpose here. My purpose was to answer Stephen's
question and to provide a summary of theological and theistically
philosophical reasons for believing that macroevolution is probably true.
You may question the chain of reasoning, but for right now I am more
interested in its basis. I and other Christians who advocate TE have been
charged with having a theology subservient to philosophical Naturalism ---
a charge with which I profoundly disagree! I have gathered all of these
reasons into one letter to demonstrate that my reasoning --- that God
probably used "natural processes" rather than "supernatural intervention"
for the formation of first life, higher taxa, and novel biological
features --- is based upon soundly Christian doctrines.)
Loren Haarsma