On Tue, 24 Oct 1995 12:04:52 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: I discuss four different "Divine _modus_operandi_" and
>correlate them to different scientific and theological perspectives on
>evolution. The issue of "divine guidance" separates Progressive Creation
>from SOME versions of Theistic Evolution, but not ALL versions of TE. The
>issue which really separates PC from TE is "detectable supernatural
>intervention in origin of first life / higher taxa."
LH>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:
>
LH>mo1) "Miraculous." Particular acts defy "naturalistic"
explanation.
> [e.g. _de_novo_ creation of the universe; Jesus' resurrection]
Even evolutionary events to date "defy `naturalistic' explanation.",
eg.
origin of life, Cambrian explosion, macro-evolulution.
LH>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]
Does this mean that "Intervention" is equivalent to "guidance"? Can
there
be no "guidance" without "intervention"?
LH>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]
See above. "Guidance" was also used in "mo2 Intervention". What is the
distinction? Is mo2 "specially guided" and mo3 "naturally guided"?
LH>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]
Even here, God is behind such "natural processes".
LH>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 question whether this predictive capability will ever be possible
for individual cases. The permutations and combinations of even one
living organism are so complex, that it might be a permanent limit to
man's knowledge.
LH>I suspect that all this scientific data could lead to four possible
>conclusions:
>
LH>s1) Basic lifeforms / higher taxa are genetically isolated from
each
>other. There are no viable evolutionary pathways between them.
I understand this is the case now. See Denton, "Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis".
LH>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.
Again, this is arguably the case now. Kemp ("The reptiles that became
mammals", New Scientist, vol. 92, 4 March 1982, p581), argues that
the reptile - mammal transition required a number of fortuitous
external extinction events (eg. asteroid collisions, etc), in order
to happen.
LH>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.
No one has shown that "unguided evolutionary processes" are
"probable". Indeed, the very opposite. The famous 1966 symposium at
the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in the University of
Pennsylvania entitled 'Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
Interpretation of Evolution', examined this question. Murrary Eden,
Professor of Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
said concluded "an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await
the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws - physical,
physico-chemical and biological'." Marcel P. Schutzenberger, a
computer scientist from the University of Paris, agreed that
"spontaneous improvement and enlargement of the code through mutations
and natural selection was 'not conceivable'" and that "if we try to
simulate such a situation by making changes randomly at the
typographic level (by letter or by blocks, the size of the unit does
not really matter) on computer programmes, we find that we have no
chance (that is, less than one chance in 10^10,000) even to see what
the modified programme would compute: it just jams." (Hitching F.,
"The Neck of the Giraffe", Ticknor & Fields: New York, 1982, pp82-83)
LH>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.
See above.
LH>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:
"Atheists" by definition, can never ascribe causation to God, because
they beleieve there is no God.
>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.)
The above do not adequately describe PC. I do not necessarily believe
that there was "de novo creation of each biological type", nor do I
believe that "No particular step is obviously miraculous". Finally,
I have this quibble about the meaning of "guidance" and intervention.
More clarification is needed here.
LH>t3) Theistic evolution: God guided the natural processes to
produce the
>particular outcome, including intelligent creatures to whom he could
>reveal himself.
Here again we need clarification of "guided". Earlier you used
"guidance" in the context of "intervention". If you mean
"intervention" then this sounds like PC.
LH>t4) Theistic evolution: God designed the natural processes to
eventually
>produce intelligent creatures without the need for "subtle guidance."
I believe this is Deistic Evolution.
LH>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).
Agreed. This is my main point about the need to get our
understanding of the Bible right first.
LH>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.
Agree and disagree. The evidence is against s1 - s4.
LH>Third, there are intermediate positions between s1/s2, s2/s3,
s3/s4, and
>s2/s4; there are also corresponding intermediate theological positions.
See above.
>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."
Disagree. This needs further clarification.
LH>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.
Clarification is needed re what is meant by "divine guidance". Is it
"intervention". If not, why not?
LH>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.
See above.
LH>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.
This is getting too confusing! How about some English terms for s1-4
and t1-4. Its too difficult in the time available to keep checking
back to what they mean.
LH>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.
No comment without clarification. See above.
>Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>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"?
LH>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.
Then it is possible that they could be the same? That is God's
intervention in human history could be the same as His intervention
in biological history?
SJ>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?
LH>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.
Good! Johnson says:
"The most important statement in Scripture about creation is not
contained in Genesis but in the opening verses of the Gospel of John:
`In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into
being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.'
(John 1:1-3)
This statement plainly says that creation was by a force that was (and
is) intelligent and personal."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove IL, 1995, p107)
Let us build on this area of common understanding! :-)
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------