------------------------
Let me start by describing four Divine _modus_operandi_; I believe we see
all four of these happening in the Bible (in salvation history) and in the
world around us:
mo1) "Miraculous." Particular acts defy "naturalistic" explanation.
[e.g. _de_novo_ creation of the universe; Jesus' resurrection]
mo2) "Intervention." No particular action is obviously miraculous (without
accompanying verbal revelation), but the overall pattern clearly shows
divine guidance. ("Clearly," that is, to theists.)
[e.g. David's ascension to king despite Saul's jealousy; the history
of Israel through exile and subsequent return; events leading to
repentance and faith in many of our individual lives]
mo3) "Guidance." God is guiding events for his own purpose; however, he
does it so subtly and through such ordinary events that the pattern
escapes us. Even in hindsight, we cannot determine which events were
"specially guided" and which were a "natural outworking" of processes.
[e.g. many of the events in our own lives fit this category; the
author of Ecclesiastes especially wrote about this]
mo4) "Governance." Events follow the natural outcomes of the natural
processes which God ordained from the begining.
[e.g. the regular changing of the seasons; addiction from drug
use]
----------------------
With that theological basis, let me offer a little scientific
prognostication:
Let's imagine that, 200 years hence, molecular biology and evolutionary
biology have landed on firm, empirical footing. Our scientific database
includes the entire genome of every living species, including all alleles.
Given the sequence of any gene -- including any potential mutation -- we
can predict the structure/function of the resulting protein(s). We can
predict the effects any mutation would have on the organism. In addition,
we've got empirical numbers for mutation frequencies, and solid models of
population dynamics, so we can predict the cumulative effects of random
mutation and natural selection in an entire population. We are confident
of our understanding of the various types of mutations (e.g. point
mutations, gene duplication, conversion of pseudogenes, genetic transfer
between species, etc.).
I suspect that all this scientific data could lead to four possible
conclusions:
s1) Basic lifeforms / higher taxa are genetically isolated from each
other. There are no viable evolutionary pathways between them.
s2) There exist "evolutionary pathways" between various lifeforms / higher
taxa, and genetic homologies between present lifeforms indicate common
ancestry. However, it is incredibly IMPROBABLE that "unguided evolutionary
processes" would find pathways leading to increased complexity and
biological novelty --- at least within the timeframe dictated by the
fossil record.
s3) There exist evolutionary pathways between various lifeforms / higher
taxa, and genetic homologies between present lifeforms indicate common
ancestry. It is in fact PROBABLE that "unguided evolutionary processes"
would find pathways leading to increased complexity and biological
novelty. However, the various potential evolutionary pathways diverge
wildly from each other, and it is therefore extremely unlikely that we
(humans) or anything like us would have arisen.
s4) There exist evolutionary pathways between various lifeforms / higher
taxa, and genetic homologies between present lifeforms indicate common
ancestry. It is in fact PROBABLE that "unguided evolutionary processes"
would find pathways leading to increased complexity and biological
novelty. The various potential evolutionary pathways tend to converge
onto certain archetypes, and it is therefore PROBABLE that we (humans) or
something like us would eventually arise.
---------------------
What would we conclude, theologically, from each of these four outcomes?
(Atheists and agnostics will have to answer that question for themselves.)
I expect that most theists, like myself, would chose each of these
four corresponding theological positions, corresponding fairly well to
(mo1 - mo4) above:
t1) Progressive creation: _De_novo_ creation of each biological type.
t2) Progressive creation: God guided the natural processes. (No
particular step is obviously miraculous, but the cumulative effect shows
supernatural guidance.)
t3) Theistic evolution: God guided the natural processes to produce the
particular outcome, including intelligent creatures to whom he could
reveal himself.
t4) Theistic evolution: God designed the natural processes to eventually
produce intelligent creatures without the need for "subtle guidance."
-----------------------------------------
Now, a few points:
First, these four theological perspectives (t1 - t4) are influenced by the
scientific data, but they are each rooted in a biblical understanding of
different ways in which God works (mo1 - mo4).
Second, our present-day scientific understanding does not clearly point
towards s1, s2, s3, or s4. There are some hints in each of those
directions.
Third, there are intermediate positions between s1/s2, s2/s3, s3/s4, and
s2/s4; there are also corresponding intermediate theological positions.
Fourth, "progressive creationists" argue that the data favors s1/s2 and
t1/t2, while "theistic evolutionists" argue that the data favors s3/s4 and
t3/t4. That is why I say that the issue which REALLY separates PC from TE
is "detectable supernatural intervention in origin of first life / higher
taxa."
Fifth, the issue of "divine guidance" of natural processes separates t2/t3
from t4. That is why I say that "divine guidance" is NOT the issue which
really separates PC from TE.
Sixth, if the scientific data ultimately favors s3 alone, then position t3
would seem to require an "absolutely deterministic" divine governance --
i.e. God selecting the outcome of every "chance" event. However, it
seems more likely that the scientific data will favor an intermediate
s2/s3 or s3/s4, both of which would allow "guidance" through random events
without requiring (though not precluding) "absolutely deterministic"
governance.
Seventh, it is not unreasonable to hope that future scientific advances
will clearly point towards one of s1/s2/s3/s4 (or some intermediate
position). Advances in cosmology, particle physics, and geology in just
the last few decades strongly suggest that something analogous to s4 is
indicated for the formation of galaxies, stars, heavier elements, planets,
and the formation of the earth's land, atmosphere, and oceans; while
something analogous to s3 is indicated for the formation of the particular
earth/moon system and the earth's particular geography. This leads
"old-earth creationists" to adopt a version of t3/t4 for the creation of
the universe's physical forms.
Eighth, the Genesis 1 text does not clearly favor mo1, mo2, mo3, or mo4
for biological history (especially given the mo3/mo4 interpretion of the
second, third, and fourth days of creation). So a "simple" difference of
scientific intuition (i.e. does PRESENT-DAY biological data favor s1, s2,
s3, or s4) can lead to different theological interpretations of the
Genesis text.
----------------
Stephen Jones wrote:
> What is the difference between God saying in human language to Abram:
> "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to
> the land I will show you." (Gn 12:1), and God "saying" in genetic
> code to Acanthostega: "grow a foot from your fin and your descendants
> will go to a land that I will show them"?
I guess the relevant difference is that Abram's call happened by mo1 (or
_maybe_ mo2), while God's command to Acanthostega could have happened by
any of mo1 - mo4.
> The first may have been expresed in the language of the genetic
> code and the second in human language? The common factor is the
> Logos (Jn 1:1). If so, then this may be a fruitful area of common
> understanding of Divine intervention between TE and PC?
I agree. The Logos (Jn 1:1) is definitely the common factor. I believe
nearly all TEs favor some intermediate version of s3/s4 and t3/t4, which
definitely allows for (subtle) Divine intervention in biological history.
This gives common ground with PC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... Another casualty of applied metaphysics." | Loren Haarsma
--Hobbes (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu