On Tue, 02 Jan 1996 15:43:09 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
[...]
LH>"Progressive Creation" attempts to understand biological history
within the biblical framework of a Creator-God who occasionally
intervenes into history to achieve his purposes.
This "occasionally" sounds too ad-hoc. No PC AFAIK has ever said that
God "occasionally" intervenes into history. I have said that God
intervenes in biological history *at strategic points*.
LH>"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.
Well, this is true of PC too!
May I suggest that better definitions are:
(1) Both "Theistic Evolution" (TE) and "Progressive Creation" (PC)
believes that God called the universe into being, and developed the
Earth using natural processes in preparation for life.
(2) However, TE believes these natural processes, under God's normal
providential control (with the possible exception of the origin of
life and the origin of mankind), were sufficient to bring about the
origin and development of the living world.
(3) PC, fully accepts the same normal providential control of God that
TE does, but PC believes that it was necessary for God to directly and
supernatural intervene at strategic points in biological history, to
bring about the origin and development of the living world.
(4) NOTE: the differences between TE and PC at the margins may be
very small, but they are significant. If TE believes that it was
necessary for God to directly and supernaturally intervene to
originate life and mankind, then TE is, at those points, virtually
indistinguisable from PC. Also, PC in its requirement for
supernatural intervention at strategic points in biological history,
need not postulate the de novo creation of whole new organisms. God's
intervention need only be subtle, precisely timed and sequentially
targeted, to achieve His aims.
>PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES:
>-----------------------
>
> ++ Progressive creationists see certain areas of biological history as
> prime candidates for instances of God's "miraculous intervention."
> (e.g. the appearance of first life, the appearance of higher taxa,
> the appearance of biological novelty and complexity --- areas where
> macroevolutionary theory is particularly vulnerable to scientific
> criticism.)
Agreed. But many TE's also see "the appearance of first life"
requiring God's "miraculous intervention". To that extent, TE is a
minimum form of PC.
> ++ Most progressive creationists _actively_advocate_ one or more of these
> areas as _evidence_ of God's miraculous activity in the past.
Agreed. But the appearance of higher taxa and the appearance of
biological novelty and complexity, may resolve into one and the same
thing? Any genuine increase in novelty and complexity (e.g. fish
with legs, reptile with feathers, etc) would surely place the organism
into a new higher taxonomic category?
> == Theistic evolutionists see these SAME areas of biological history as
> fruitful areas of scientific research, with the potential for
> discovering new insights into the amazing natural processes which God
> created.
PC's have no problem with these above areas as "fruitful areas of
scientific research". Many PC's (eg. Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen "The
Mystery of Life's Origin"] are at the forefront of such research.
> == Most theistic evolutionists believe it is inadvisable (both
> scientifically and theologically) to advocate any of these areas as
> _evidence_ for God's miraculous activity in the past, and argue
> against doing so.
Agreed. But it is not clear why. Science is never likely to be able
to penetrate to the exact moment of creation, whether in the case of
the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of
biological novelty. Indeed, science has never observed, and is never
likely to observe, a macro-evolutionary event. For example, science
will never be able to find or observe the first self-replicating
molecule, the first fin to become a foot, or even the first fully
human being.
On this principle TE would presumably think it simialrly "inadvisable
(both scientifically and theologically) to advocate" that the Big
Bang was "evidence for God's miraculous activity in the past" and
would "argue against doing so"?
Johnson, quoting TE Nancey Murphy, Professor of Christian philosophy
at Fuller Theological Seminary in southern California, says:
"...Christians in science, philosophy, and theology are still haunted
by the idea of a "God of the gaps."...Many Christians are wary of
invoking divine action in any way in science, especially in biology,
fearing that science will advance, providing the naturalistic
explanations that will make God appear once again to have been an
unnecessary hypothesis." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, pp97-98)
Johnson then asks:
"Why should theistic scholars be haunted by the fear that invoking
divine action in biology is inherently futile, assuming they believe
that such divine activity could have occurred? (If they do not
believe divine action could have occurred, then they are naturalists,
not theists.)" (Johnson, "Reason in the Balance", p100)
LH>COMMON MISPERCEPTIONS:
>----------------------
>
>Progressive Creation has been criticized as being a "god-of-the-gaps."
>It is not.
Rather, Progressive Creation has been criticized as *believing* in a
"god-of-the-gaps". In a very real sense it does. If God has
progressively intervened in biological history, then it is to be
expected at the history of life will reveal significant
discontinuities, and it does. PC would predict that most (if not all)
these "gaps" will never be able to be filled by plausible 100%
naturalistic processes.
LH>++ Theologically, PC's know and acknowledge that God is equally
> involved in, and sovereign over, ALL processes --- both
> "natural" and "miraculous."
This is true, although "miraculous" may be events, not "processes".
But while it is true that God is "equally involved in...both
`natural' and `miraculous' " processes/events, it is not necessarily
true that God is "involved" *in the same way*. In "natural" processes,
God is involved immanently, ie. from "within", whereas in "miraculous"
events, God is involved transcendently, ie. from "without'.
LH>++ Practically, PC's do NOT always retreat to the position that
> "God did it" _whenever_ they encounter a scientific puzzle;
> rather, they have specific scientific and theological reasons (*1)
> for believing that God probably used miraculous intervention in these
> _specific_ areas of biological history.
Agreed. While PC's indeed believe that "God did it", it is a myth to
allege they are any less interested in finding out *how* God did it.
LH>Theistic Evolution has been criticized as a capitulation to Deism
>or Philosophical Naturalism. It is not.
At one extreme, TE can resemble Deism, if it postulates *fully*
naturalistic processes were adequate to explain even the origin of
life and the origin of mankind.
LH> == Theologically, TE's know and acknowledge that God can
> miraculously intervene in the natural world, and that He
> has done so in the past.
Agreed. Some's allow for God to have intervened in the origin of life
and of man. This makes those TE's different from PC in degree, not in
kind.
LH> ==Practically, TE's agree that many historical descriptions would
> beincomplete and inaccurate without reference to God's miracles
> (e.g. the history of Isreal); however, they have specific
> scientific and theological reasons (*1) for believing that in these
> _specific_ areas of biological history (first life, higher taxa,
> biological novelty, etc.) God probably did use miraculous
> intervention.
This is puzzling. This makes TE *identical* to PC! Should "TE's" read
"PC's"?
LH>STRENGTHS OF EACH:
>------------------
>
> ++ The _framework_ of Progressive Creation matches the traditional
> Christian framework for thinking about Genesis 1. (i.e. a sequence of
> miraculous acts) (*2)
Agreed. But PC looks to the *whole Bible* to inform it of the sort of
God that the Christian God is. He is revealed from Genesis to
Revelation as an intervening God, against a background of normal,
natural process.
LH> ++ PC creates apologetic dialogue by emphasizing scientific
> critiques where macroevoltionary theory is weak, and offering
> these as candidates for God's activity.
PC believes that "macro-evolutionary theory" is not only "weak" it is
virtually non-existent. For example, although it is nearly 140 years
since Darwin published his Origin of Species (1859), evolutionists are
still divided about the tempo and mode of macro-evolution. Biologists
like Dawkins claim that macro-evolution can only, even in principle,
happen by a step-by-step, "blind watchmaker", gene selection
mechanism, in order to explain organised biological complexity 100%
naturalistically. Paleontologists, like Gould, however, point out
that the fossil record reveals that macro-evolution did not happen
this way, but took place in a series of explosive bursts. PC's see
this as to be expected by macro-evolution not happening 100%
naturalistically.
LH> == The _framework_ of Theistic Evolution matches the "traditional"
> (*3) Christian framework for thinking about God's on-going
> governance of the natural world (e.g. the motion of the planets,
> the regular changing of the seasons, the weather, the maintenance of
> the ecology, the development of multi-cellular organisms from
> zygotes).
Agreed, but this is the "Christian framework" for *Providence* not
*Creation*.
LH> == The framework of TE also matches the typical (non-YEC)
> Christian
framework for thinking about God's creation of the universe's
> _physical_ forms (e.g. the heavier elements, galaxies, stars,
> planets, the earth's atmosphere and ocean).
Agreed. But the above is also true of PC. PC does not necessarily have
a position on non-biological origin and development, because: a) there
is so little Biblical material - Genesis 1 is primarily concerned with
the Earth, not the rest of the universe; and b) the complexity of
living things is far greater than non-living things, eg. a bacterium
is far more complex than a galaxy.
LH> == By emphasizing God's sovereignty over EVERY natural event and
> process, TE offers an immediate critique of the "mythology of
> chance" which often clings to debate about origins.
This seems a bit vague. Exactly *how* does TE generate testable
scientific theories about origins that are uniquely TE? For example,
PC could propose a testable hypothesis that Acanthostega grew a foot
from a fin by a series of precisely timed and targeted mutations to
this amphibian's HOX genes by an external Intelligent Designer. This
could be proposed in great detail, with precise genes needing to be
switched on an off in sequential order. It could be shown, moreover,
that no known natural process exists for manipulating the enormously
complex network of HOX genes. This should qualify as a genuine
scientific theory (apart from materialistic-naturalistic dogmatic
refusal to acknowledge the possibilty of transcendent Intelligent
Design). This PC hypothesis could be falsified by showing that a
plausible 100% naturalistic process, that fits all the facts, can
account for Acanthostega's foot.
But what scientific hypothesis can TE propose about this strategic
point in the history of life on Earth, *that is uniquely TE*? It
seems that all TE can say is that it happened by Darwinistic
macro-evolutionary processes (eg. random mutations and natural
selection), but that God was behind these so-called natural events.
This may be so on theological grounds ("The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD" -- Pr 16:33), but how is
that a uniquely TE testable scientific theory?
[continued in part #2]
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------