On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:53:07 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote to Steve
Schimmrich:
[..]
DT>There has been a long tradition in Christian circles of adopting
>the "Two Book" approach. This has treated God's revelation in the
>Scriptures as a separate and autonomous category of knowledge,
>distinct from God's revelation in the book of nature. This has been
>the justification for an essentially "autonomous" science among large
>sections of the Christian community. Ham is popularising the serious
>objections made against the Two-Book approach. The alternative is to
>present all knowledge as a harmonious whole, with God as the source.
>This is not to say that the Bible speaks about everything, but that
>the foundations of knowledge are to be found in Scripture.
This is a one-sided Baconian view of the "Two-Book approach", ie. a
"separate but equal" apartheid. For most of my Christian life I have
followed Ramm's "Two-Book approach" which views Scripture and nature
as *complementary*:
"If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and
that the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are
committed to some very positive theory of harmonization between
science and evangelicalism. God cannot contradict His speech in
Nature by His speech in Scripture. If the Author of Nature and
Scripture are the same God, then the two books of God must eventually
recite the same story." (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and
Scripture", Paternoster: London, 1955, p25)
Perhaps a better metaphor is that of a photograph and a painting?
Both would describe the same reality, but the former would be
concerned with the detail, whreas the latter would try to bring out
the underlying meaning and purpose.
[...]
SS>Finally, when discussing issues with young-earth creationists, it
>would be a good idea to discuss terminology first. Many
>creationists use words (like "evolution") in far, far different ways
>than do non-creationists. These types of issues are addressed very
>well in a book I just read by Del Ratzsch "The Battle of Beginnings:
>Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation/Evolution Debate" (1996,
>InterVarsity).
DT>I'm about half-way through Del's book, and greatly appreciate what
>he has done. It would be good for all popularisers (on all sides!)
>to read this book. It will make them think: what exactly am I
>popularising?!.. Perhaps Del's book is the one to push hard - as it
>clarifies many of these issues
I too am reading carefully through Del Ratzsch's book having skimmed
through it first. I am finding it very helpful and educative. The
only pity is that it seems to continue the stereotype that there are
only two Christian views on origins: YEC and TE. There is no
mention made of PC, although he does provide a defence of
supernatural intervention at that would satisfy most PCs:
"So it is far from clear that the attempt in question to establish
the internal inconsistency of theistic evolution works. But suppose
it did. Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance
built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling
it with any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly
possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept
instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove
most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and
inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were
God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential
new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the
emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous
and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged
such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive
ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic
intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural
elements in the process." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., 1996, pp187-188)
I would urge all Reflectorites to get Del's book. Here is a review
by Phil Johnson, which I found at PJ's home page at:
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/LIBRARY/JOHNSON/home.html:
-------------------------------------------------------
"Starting a Conversation about Evolution" by Phillip E. Johnson
A review of The Battle of the Beginnings: Why Neither Side is
Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate by Del Ratzsch
Del Ratzsch, professor of philosophy of science at Calvin College,
has written a flawed but thoughtful book that encourages me to hope
that, despite some unfortunate resentments and misunderstandings, the
Christian intellectual response to evolutionary naturalism may be
converging on a common set of principles. I am afraid that many
readers may miss Ratzsch's most significant points, however, because
they are presented in a context that tends to conceal their
importance.
It appears that Ratzsch started out to write a critical analysis of
the conflict between neo-Darwinism and creation- science -- as
exemplified on the one hand by the British zoologist and fervent
atheist Richard Dawkins, and on the other hand by the young-earth
fundamentalist Henry Morris and his creation-science movement.
Ratzsch's original aim seems to have been to show that some bad
arguments have been made by both sides in this polarized conflict,
and then to defend the compromise position called "theistic
evolution" from the charge that it is no more than a vacuous attempt
to split the difference between theism and naturalism. That doesn't
sound very new or exciting, but somewhere along the way Ratzsch seems
to have recognized that the old creation/evolution debate is getting
redefined, and he makes some constructive points to help that process
along.
Ratzsch's subtitle says that "neither side is winning" the battle
between the neo-Darwinists and the Biblical creationists. I cannot
imagine what gives him that impression, since the Darwinian position
dominates not only science, but government, the universities, the
public schools, and the media. Most people I meet in the secular
university world have gained what little information they have about
creationism from the writings of its principal enemies, such as Carl
Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, and Isaac Asimov. They take for granted
that evolutionary science has explained or soon will have explained
the entire history of life on naturalistic principles. To the extent
that they take any notice of either creation-science or theistic
evolution, they consign both to the subjective realm of "religion,"
which has nothing to do with an objective science like biology.
Given this state of affairs, it is difficult to see what Ratzsch
could expect to accomplish by his concluding recommendation that
"maybe the various sides [to the creation/evolution debate] should
talk. Not debate--talk. It is just possible, neither side being
omniscient, that both sides could gain something from serious contact
with competent practicioners on the other."
If Ratzsch is proposing a serious, mutually respectful conversation
between the neo-Darwinists and the Biblical creationists, he is in
need of a reality check. The position of just about everyone with
any influence in evolutionary science is that creationism is not
science, and its practitioners by definition cannot be competent.
This is the case not only because creationists are deemed to be
prejudiced by their belief that the Bible has authority over
scientific questions, but even more fundamentally because they reject
naturalism, which is the philosophical basis of contemporary science.
Theistic evolutionists fare little better. Most theistic
evolutionists do not challenge either the conclusions of evolutionary
biology or its naturalistic methodology, but argue merely that
evolution by natural processes is compatible with theistic religion.
To the extent that they go farther, and postulate a supernatural
directing force in evolution, they violate the rules of
methodological naturalism and are no more welcome in scientific
discussions than outright creationists. In either case, what
scientific topic is there to talk about?
For a productive scientific conversation to be even conceivable there
would have to be a new force in the picture, one which is capable of
entering the debate with arguments which the naturalists cannot
easily refuse to take seriously. Almost halfway through his book
Ratzsch discloses that a potential force of that kind has in fact
emerged, a new phenomenon which he mysteriously refers to as an
"upper tier" of creationists. He explains that this group consists
of persons with doctorates from first-class universities, who are
performing serious scientific and philosophical work to advance
concepts like "intelligent design" and "irreducible complexity" as
legitimate descriptions of biological reality. Although Ratzsch does
not name any of the members of this "upper tier" in his text (a few
references are provided in the Notes), or discuss their work in any
detail, he apparently sympathizes with their objectives and endorses
some important principles that are essential to gain them a fair
hearing.
In particular, Ratzsch rejects the argument that science is defined
by its adherence to naturalism, pointing out that such a dogmatic
standard potentially conflicts with the principle that science should
be a "no holds barred" search for truth. Unless we have a priori
knowledge that naturalism is true, then we cannot rule out the
possibility that supernatural action may have affected the history of
life, and that evidence of that action may exist. Ratzsch similarly
rejects Richard Dawkins' argument that reference to a creator in
science as the source of biological complexity is logically
pernicious because it leaves the creator unexplained. Every
explanation has an unexplained starting point. A theistic science
starts with an uncreated creator; a naturalistic science starts with
something like particles and natural laws, and goes on from there.
If living organisms -- up to and including human minds -- can be
created by unintelligent material processes, then the need for a
creator (at least after the ultimate beginning) is greatly lessened
if not eliminated. But the "if" that begins that sentence can be
satisfied only by evidence, not by defining "science" to exclude any
other possibility.
On similar grounds Ratzsch rejects the argument, frequently made by
theistic evolutionists, that to posit action by a creator anywhere in
the history of life is to invoke a futile "god of the gaps," who will
inevitably be expelled from reality as science advances to fill the
gaps with naturalistic explanations. Ratzsch sensibly retorts that
"If there are no gaps in the fabric of natural explanation, then
obviously appeal to divine activity will get us off track. On the
other hand, if there are such gaps, refusing in principle to
recognize them will equally get us off the track." That is
particularly cogent reasoning if the so- called "gaps" involve not
minor details but such fundamental problems as accounting for the
existence of irreducibly complex genetic information.
In all these instances Ratzsch insists upon a principle I heartily
endorse; he will not permit either side to win its case by
controlling the definition of terms. Either organisms show evidence
of design or they do not; either mindless processes like mutation and
selection can make complex biological organisms or they can not. The
determination should be made by a fair assessment of the evidence and
not by defining "science" as an enterprise that inherently assumes
the one possibility and excludes the other.
This endorsement of a level playing field is more radical than
readers may suppose. The view that science and methodological
naturalism are inseparable is widespread among many scientists and
philosophers, including theistic evolutionists, and makes it
impossible for them to take seriously the possibility that the
creation of genetic information might require intelligence. Show
them a computer program and they will never question the need for a
programmer. Show them a much more impressive example of design in
nature, and they will never doubt that unintelligent material
processes must have been responsible for the appearance of design.
Even if they give lip service to the possibility that a designer
might exist, they will insist on standards of evaluation that ensure
that a putative example of design can never be more than a problem
that naturalistic science has not yet solved.
Ratzsch is aware that the appeal of evolutionary naturalism owes as
much to moral and spiritual factors as to scientific evidence. He
says in his preface that he was raised a Christian fundamentalist,
and taught to respect science but to distrust Darwinism. At first he
wanted to reconcile Genesis, religion, and evolution, but at some
point along the way I think I ceased to want them to be reconcilable.
Evolution, along with the new cosmologies and backed by the
undeniable prestige of science, became part of a gratifyingly
sophisticated excuse for unbelief -- a ticket out of an oppressive
universe with a God who set boundaries and made demands, into one
where we set the rules and the cosmos itself was the only limit. (It
was this personal experience as much as anything that has convinced
me that creation-evolution issues frequently run much deeper than
mere scientific theory.)
I was raised as a nominal Christian, not a fundamentalist, but
otherwise my story would be similar. My own realization that there
is a profound relationship between naturalistic philosophy and
Darwinian science led to my writing two books and many articles on
this subject. It also led to my forming a rewarding colleagueship
with a group of scholars and scientists whom I judge capable of
holding their own in a serious conversation with the scientific
naturalists. This group is the "upper tier" of professors and
researchers whose existence Ratzsch so tentatively acknowledges as
the new factor in the debate.
My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes,
"mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This
means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and
that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible
to science, particularly in biology. We avoid the tangled arguments
about how or whether to reconcile the Biblical account with the
present state of scientific knowledge, because we think these issues
can be much more constructively engaged when we have a scientific
picture that is not distorted by naturalistic prejudice. If life is
not simply matter evolving by natural selection, but is something
that had to be designed by a creator who is real , then the nature of
that creator, and the possibility of revelation, will become a matter
of widespread interest among thoughtful people who are currently
being taught that evolutionary science has show God to be a product
of the human imagination.
Our movement is something of a scandal in some sections of the
Christian academic world for the same reason that it is exciting: we
propose actually to engage in a serious conversation with the
mainstream scientific culture on fundamental principles, rather than
to submit to its demand that naturalism be conceded as the basis for
all scientific discussion. That raises the alarming possibility, as
one of Ratzsch's colleagues put it in criticizing me, that "the gulf
between the academy and the sanctuary will only grow wider." The
bitter feeling that has been spawned in some quarters by that
possibility may explain why Ratzsch discusses our group so
tentatively, but no matter. What matters for the present is to open
up the discussion, and to that end Del Ratzsch has made a positive
contribution.
-------------------------------------------------------
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------