Re: The language of "punctuated naturalism"

Richard A. Knopp (rknopp@prairienet.org)
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:34:06 -0700

lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
>
> Here's a topic we haven't discussed in a while: what can we do to eliminate
> the language of "punctuated naturalism" from the origins debate?
>
> What do I mean by "punctuated naturalism"? Here's an example from _Reason in
> the Balance_ by Phillip Johnson.
>
> > Page 14: "The culurally important element in the Darwinian theory is not the
> > claim that there was some process of ancestral descent in biology, nor is it
> > the claim that biological creation was a gradual and lengthy process rather
> > than the single week described literally in Genesis. Such claims have to do
> > only with the method of creaiton, not the nature of the creator. The
> > important claim is the one that substitutes a purposeless material process
> > for the Creator."
>
> After arguing at great lengths that the concept of a "Purposeless Material
> Process" is an inseparable element of Darwinian theory, Johnson goes
> on to write,
>
> > Page 15: "In _Darwin on Trial_ I examined the evidence for the blind
> > watchmaker thesis and found it wholly unsatisfactory to persuade an unbiased
> > mind that biological creation occurred in the way Darwinists say it did.
> > That is not to say that all the claims that come under the label "evolution"
> > are false. There is no question that evolution of the Darwinian kind occurs,
> > in the sense that types of living organisms have a certain capacity for
> > variation. This is a process commonly called microevolution...."
>
> So Johnson is inadvertently saying here that microevolution is a
> Purposeless Material Process! That seems like very bad theology, or at
> the very least, a poor choice of words.
>
> This example is not unique. Over and over again, in books, articles, and
> lectures, I've encountered similar language by Christians which _implies_
> that if God isn't doing something miraculous, then he's not doing anything
> important.
>
> Punctuated Naturalism.
>
> To be fair, I've read a few very eloquent descriptions of Providence, and how
> it applies to material processes, in ID/PC literature. But in my experience,
> those have been the exception rather than the rule.
>
> So, is this a minor problem, or a serious one? If serious, what can we do to
> change it?
>
> Loren Haarsma

-- Loren:
Your beginning (i.e., "what can we do to eliminate the language of
"punctuated naturalism" from the origins debate?) seems to run counter to
your final question (i.e., "is this a minor problem, or a serious one? If
serious, what can we do to change it?). You appear to begin by assuming
that it's "serious." I guess my point is that it IS "serious," but that it
is appropriate if not also necessary.
I would grant that the view that some Christians hold (i.e., that if
God isn't doing something miraculous, then he's not doing anything
important") needs to be rethought. But regarding the language of
"punctuated naturalism," I don't see that it collapses to such a
questionable consequence.
While we may (legitimately) contend that God's sustaining power is
ALWAYS necessary for any life or organized structure, it seems much less
"necessary" to have to appeal to anything or anyone (including God) to
account for something maintaining the same basic level of complexity
(information content or whatever).
When my wife and I "produced" our children, we were both extremely
thrilled. They were beautiful and so talented. In a sense, we thought is
WAS a miracle. Yet we still seem able to account for their characteristics
and "nature" without appealing to something outside the "normal" process.
However, if one of my kids had the capacity to fly with their arms or lift
5,000 pounds, I would think it much more necessary to believe that some
"outside" factor(s) had to be involved.
Isn't Johnson's "microevolution" language something like this? Does
it need to deny sustenance or providence (even "miracle")? Can't it more
simply be a recognition that changes "at the same basic level of complexity"
don't seem to demand some "other" factor, whereas transitions toward higher
or greater levels of complexity or capacity do?
I agree that Johnson's saying "microevolution is a Purposeless
Material Process" may not be the best choice of words, but the point still
appears to be substantive, legitimate, and potentially helpful.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard A. Knopp, Ph.D.
Prof. of Philosophy & Christian Apologetics
Lincoln Christian College & Seminary
100 Campus View Drive
Lincoln, IL 62656

"If God didn't exist, He would want us not to believe in Him."
(As far as I know, this statement is original with me.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *