On Tue, 02 Jan 1996 15:44:06 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
[...]
LH>I believe I see several important points of agreement here.
>
>First, I agree that the doctrine of "Creation" involves much more than (1)
>the _physical_history_ of the object or system. (A physical history might
>or might not include several miraculous events.)
Agreed. Creation is external to the creature's physical history.
LH>"Creation" ALSO means that (2) the created was called into
>existence by an intelligent, personal, and transcendent power.
Agreed. But this should be (1) and then your (1) is redundant, or at
best a corollary?
KH>"Creation" also means that (3) the created exist to serve and
glorify the Creator.
Not necessarily. One could imagine a Creator who created, but did not
require service or glorification.
So, I only accept (2) above as essential to the concept of creation.
LH>Based upon what you wrote above (and what you've written
>elsewhere), it seems that whenever you read or use the word
>"evolution," you pack it with a metaphysical baggage which is
>antithetical to points (2) and (3) above.
No. I believe "evolution" already has in-built "metaphysical baggage"
that makes it antithetical to point (2). The words "creation",
"making" and "forming" appear hundreds of times is the Bible. The
word "evolution" or even its concept, appears nowhere in the Bible.
IMHO it is a pagan, Greek, essentially pantheistic concept that should
not be used to describe the process by which the Judeo-Christian God
created, made or formed the universe, earth and life.
LH>On the other hand, I reserve the word "evolutionISM" for that. I
>tend to use the word "evolution" in a smaller sense, one restricted
>to the question of _physical_history_ alone. (This may be because I
>learned to use the word primarily in the context of physics.)
I hear the word "evolution" used in the media to describe everything
from that involves change over time. It is clear to me it has come to
mean an all-embracing principle of becoming that has come to take the
place of God in the minds of secular people today.
Therefore because this all-embracing metaphysical principle of
becoming, called "evolution", has taken the place of God, it is IMHO
an idol. From the depths of my being that Christians should not use
the term "evolution" as part of their apologetics - the Biblical term
is *creation*.
LH>What we need in our discussion, Stephen, is a term which means the
>following: "a physical history of an object or system, begining at one
>point in time and ending at another, which is adequately described by the
>regular and continuous operation of natural processes." (Surely such a
>term is allowable in a theistic framework, is it not?) I suggest, for
>now, we use the term "Natural Development." (By contrast, "miraculous
>development" means that the _physical_history_ included miraculous events
>inexplicable by natural mechanisms.)
I have no problem with neutral words being used in science. But I do
not believe that "evolution" is a neutral word. Scientists who are
Christians have no choice but to use "evolution" in their science -
they, like all Christian must be "in the world" (Jn 17:11), but "not
of the world" (Jn 17:16). But there is no reason why Christians should
use "evolution" in their *theology*!
LH>We agree that objects or systems which have a "natural development"
>are just as much under the governance of the Creator as objects which
>have (or had) a "miraculous development."
If we are going to talk secular science, then use "natural
development" or even "evolution". If we are going to talk theology or
theistic science, then use words with Biblical content like "create",
"make", "form", etc.
LH>Now let me rephrase the very top paragraph. I see absolutely
>nothing antithetical between the idea of Creation, and the idea of a
>Natural Development from a universe of nearly uniform hydrogen and
>helium to one with galaxies, stars, heavier elements, and planets. I
>see absolutely nothing antithetical between the idea of Creation and
>the idea of a Natural Development from a proto-star to a stellar
>system including a planet with an atmosphere, dry land, and a water
>ocean. (Are you with me so far?)
Yes and no. I have already explained to you, I do not necessarily see
a connection between the origin of stars and the origin of life. The
Bible hardly mentions the creation of the stars, except to say that
God made them and set them in their place (Gn 1:14-18).
The origin of the physical universe was comparatively simple, and can
be described in a handful of mathematical formulae. However, I do not
rule out God's supernatural intervention in the case of the Earth (eg.
the origin of the Moon). The origin and development of life and
consciousness is in a different league altogether. The simplest
living thing, eg. a bacteria, is probably more complex than the
entire physical universe.
LH>Finally, I see absolutely nothing antithetical between the idea of
>Creation and the idea of a Natural Development from a lifeless planet
>(under suitable initial conditions) to one with primitive life,
>follwed by increased complexity and biological novelty.
I do. If the origin and development of life, the universe and
everything can be fully and adequately explained by 100% naturalistic
processes, without reference to God, then there is no necessity to
believe in a Creator-God.
SJ>What does "evolution" signify today to the man of science, and
>especially to the current philosophy of science, to which our
>overtures for reconciliation are extended?"
LH>I'll answer (based upon my experience) what "evolution" signifies
>today to the man or woman of physics and astronomy. When refering to
>galactic, stellar, planetary, or almost any cosmology process, he or
>she means "Natural Development" as I defined it above. He or she may
>disagree with me about whether the stars were called into existence
>by God, and whether their ultimate purpose is to serve and glorify
>the creator, but we CAN agree on whether or not stars have a "natural
>development."
Agreed, but Astronomy is *not* where the battle is. The battle is in
the field of *biological* evolution.
LH>And in my experience, biologists often use the term "evolution" in
>a similar way --- in the technical sense "natural development" rather
>than the philosophical sense of evolutionism. When we clarify the
>differences between these two meanings of the word "evolution," we
>are well prepared for "overtures for reconciliation."
They may, but it is too easy to switch gears and use "evolution" in
its "philosophical sense". No distinction is *ever* made between
"evolution" and "evolutionism" AFAIK. The ambiguous use of the word
"evolution" helps metaphysical naturalistst to convey the impression
to the man in the street that "evolution" in the technical and
philosophical sense are one and the same. Scientists are usually
careful about terminology, so their failure to clarify the meaning of
this important term, suggests that the confusion must be deliberately
intended. It works well - to the man in the street, evolution is, to
all intents and purposes, their Creator.
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------