DD> I'd like to thank Loren for dealing forthrightly with my original question.
> I found his response cogent and well-reasoned. However, the definitions need
> fine-tuning. I can imagine a person espousing TE being able to endorse
> without reservation the PC definition set forth; and vice versa. TE's
> don't in principle deny divine interventions; and PC's don't deny God's
> ordering and sustaining of natural processes. It appears that TE's can
> think of no scientific reason to invoke divine intervention; while PC's
> think it is scientifically acceptable (at some point, defined differently
> by different people) to invoke divine intervention.
I have just a minor adjustment to your last sentence. Add the words
"in biological history" before the semicolon.
Some TE's advocate methodological naturalism as a ground rule for the
natural sciences, but others do not. TE's do agree that it is a good
working hypothesis for studying biological history.
----------------
DD> The question boils
> down to "what is appropriate scientific method vis a vis invocation of
> divine (or "intelligent") intervention."
I agree with you. I have put the question another way: "What is an
appropriate criteria for Christian scientists to invoke, or to refrain
from invoking, divine intervention in their theories/models?" (This could
be asked of any Christian scholars, not just scientists.)
However, other reflectorites may not agree that this is a central
question. We've had little or no direct discussion of it here, even
though I've tossed it out several times this past year.
----------------------
DD> This is a philosophy of science
> question. Philosophy of science seems to me a bridge between science and
> theology, though a bridge with a few missing planks. Or, to carry the
> analogy to an absurdity, what is a "solid plank" for the PC might be a
> "weak plank" to the TE, and vice-versa.
> Explorations of underlying assumptions, even world-view issues, is one
> of the areas of (often unrealized) potential on this reflector. I don't
> think minds will be changed over this or that bit of data. Change takes
> place at the meta-level; much like a conversion (a la Kuhn).
Again, I agree with you. That is why I used the word "framework" in my
definitions of PC and TE. As you said, "I can imagine a person espousing
TE being able to endorse without reservation the PC definition set forth;
and vice versa." PC's and TE's may be able to endorse each other's
frameworks, but they do not USE each other's frameworks.
I thought about adding "exclusionary" clauses to those two definitions,
but decided against it for now, and instead added the "practical
consequences" section.
In principle, these two frameworks should be compatible. In practice,
each framework functions at the meta-level, and greatly affects the way
each of us interprets the scientific and theological data. I admit that
my TE "framework" affects my interpretation of the abiogenesis, fossil,
and genetic data. And I believe that if I started from a PC framework,
I'd reach PC interpretations of the data. (And I'd be in complete
agreement with Stephen Jones, Mike Behe, and others I've debated here.
Wouldn't that be boring? :-)
Since it seems relevant, I'll repeat those "definitions":
"Progressive Creation" attempts to understand biological history within
the biblical framework of a Creator-God who occasionally intervenes into
history, personally, to achieve his purposes.
"Theistic Evolution" attempts to understand biological history within
the biblical framework of a Creator-God who calls into being, orders,
and continually sustains all natural processes.
I'd welcome any "fine-tuning."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... Another casualty of applied metaphysics." | Loren Haarsma
--Hobbes (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu