> LH>But what if someone were to say:
>>
> > --Scientifically, I believe that natural processes are sufficient
> > to produce abiogenesis and the evolution of biological novelty
> > and increased complexity.
> > --Theologically, I believe that God guided those natural processes
> > (continuously, or at strategic points) to ensure certain
> > particulars of biological history (e.g. particular aspects
> > of human development).
> >
> > what name would you give to that position?
SJ> Theistic Evolution
>
> I have tried to give a straight answer. The boundaries between DE and
> TE and between TE and PC are sometimes difficult to draw.
I agree with you. This is TE.
I had THOUGHT we agreed upon our nomenclature, but every now and then, you
write something which makes me doubt our agreement.
For example, when you said that TE is an "unstable equilibrium" between DE
and PC, I got a little concerned. The phrase "unstable equilibrium"
implies that if TE takes just one tiny step in either direction, it will
be either a DE or a PC. But it seems to me that the TE position (as
defined above) allows for a spectrum of scientific and theological
beliefs.
I also agree with you that there is a "fuzzy boundary" between DE/TE and
between TE/PC.
===============================
SJ> May I predict your next question? :-)
>
> "If someone were to say:
>
> --Scientifically, I believe that natural processes are
> insufficient (without the aid of intelligent intervention) to
> produce first life, biological novelty, and increased
> complexity.
>
> --Theologically, I believe that God guided those natural
> processes (continuously, or at strategic points) to ensure
> certain particulars of biological history (e.g. particular
> aspects of human development).
>
> what name would you give to that position?"
>
> I would say this is Theistic Evolution also.
Actually, I would have called that PC, although it is on the border with
TE.
===================================================================
SJ> The test IMHO is the
> extent of ongoing involvement by God, e.g.:
>
> Deistic evolution - God provided laws and mechanisms of the cosmos and
> life, and started them off, but played no further part in their
> natural processes.
>
> Theistic evolution - God provided laws and mechanisms of the cosmos
> and life, and started them off, and was continuously involved
> immanently in sustaining, controlling and guiding them through natural
> processes.
>
> Progressive Creation - God provided laws and mechanisms of the cosmos
> and life, and started them off, and was continuously involved
> immanently in sustaining, controlling and guiding them through natural
> processes, and in addition intervened transcendently at strategic
> points to introduce new information and direction.
That is an excellent "theological" breakdown between DE/TE/PC.
The "scientific" breakdown between TE/PC seems to be on the issue of
whether natural mechanisms are sufficient, or insufficient, to produce
first life and biological novelty.
Thus, the position you suggested above is PC scientifically, TE
theologically; right on the border.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"OK, the situation is totally under |
control as of this moment in time." | Loren Haarsma
--Zaphod Beeblebrox | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu