> 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.
Johnson's statements about microevolution serve an important purpose:
they distinguish evolutionary changes "at the same basic level of
complexity" (micro) from changes toward higher complexity (macro). This
is an important distinction. Johnson's statements acknowledge that the
mechanisms of the former are not under dispute, and focus the discussion
on the latter. Thus far, his point is substantive, legitimate, and
helpful.
The problem, IMO, came NOT when Johnson made this distinction. The
problem came a page earlier, when Johnson agreed --- nay, spent several
paragraphs insisting --- that Philosophical Naturalism is a fundamental
element of a theory which refers solely to natural mechanisms.
Such a concenssion would not be made for a theory in any other branch of
science (with the possible exception of psychology).
Here are two reasons why I think it is important to object to the
language of "punctuated naturalism," whomever the author may be. First,
the unfortunate choice of words might actually reflect an ATTITUDE of
punctuated naturalism. A Christian who harbors an attitude of
punctuated naturalism cannot evaluate the evidence fairly; he will
necessarily conclude that increased complexity MUST be a result of
miracle. (In the same way, a Christian who harbors a "distaste" for
miracles -- and there are more than a few of them -- will not evaluate
the evidence fairly; she will necessarily conclude that increased
complexity must be a result of created natural mechanisms plus
providence.) We cannot perfectly judge another person's attitude, but
we can inspect his use of language. By insisting on correct language,
we might inform a few attitudes as well.
Second, the language of "punctuated naturalism" is a disservice both to
non-Christians and to Christians who are just begining to think about
the issues of science and faith. It has the danger of setting up the
wrong attitudes from the start.
The necessary distinctions between micro and macroevolution can be made
without resorting to the language of punctuated naturalism, even when
non-Christians are the target audience. Indeed, with such an audience,
the author or speaker has all the more reason to briefly explain the
Christian view on "natural laws," before moving on to the topic of
increased complexity.
Loren Haarsma