A Happy New Year to you all!
First, a bit of housekeeping. My last mail download was 218
messages! It has taken me 3 weeks to read and answer them. I
apologise for the great batch you will receive. Please don't complain
that they are late or that there are too many - I agree with you and
I apologise! :-)
My new strategy will be to filter all mail with "Steve", "Stephen"
"SJ" and "Jones" into a separate in-basket. I will answer those
first before I look at the other mail in my in-basket. I will try to
post my replies at least weekly and ignore the rest. This means I may
not see anything posted to the Reflector without my name in it. If you
particularly want me to see it, you may have to cc. it to me.
Thanks.
Now for my "coming out" as a Mediate Creationist (MC). I have
previously said that I was not entirely happy with the term
Progressive Creationist and that I would prefer Mediate Creationist,
since I felt I was probably not a true PCs in that: 1. I did not
insist on de novo creation of whole organisms but would be happy with
God bringing into being new "features*; 2. I accepted in principle
some form of common ancestry (even including man from primates); and
3. I am prepared in principle to grant much power to natural
processes, since it is God working through them every bit as much as
in supernatural interventions. But I have no philsophical or
theological reason to deny such supernatural interventions may have
ocurred at strategic points in biological history, as they have in
human history. I identify strongly with Wilcox's position:
"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the
miraculous action of the evident finger of God as a scientific
hypothesis. In my world view, all natural forces and events are
fully contingent on the free choice of the sovereign God. Thus,
neither an adequate nor an inadequate ''neo-Darwinism (as mechanism)
holds any terrors. But that is not what the data looks like. And I
feel no metaphysical necessity to exclude the evident finger of God.
I conclude that the easy acceptance of neo-Darwinism as a complete
and adequate explanation for all biological reality has indeed been
based in the metaphysical needs of a dominant materialistic
consensus..." (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds.,
"Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and
Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p215)
Having said that, I am still implacably opposed to the term
"Evolution" as describing my position: 1. I regard "Evolution" and
"Creation" as fundamentally antithetical concepts and to combine them
(eg. "Theistic Evolution" or "Evolutionary Creation") is IMHO
oxymoronic; 2. I find the evidence for Darwinist macro-evolution to
be somewhere between weak and non-existent (I do not regard evidence
for common ancestry as necessarily evidence for Darwinist
macro-evolution); 3. Apologetically the terms "Theistic Evolution"
and "Evolutionary Creation" are worse than useless. Naturalistic
Evolutionists are unimpressed with it since it adds nothing new
scientifically. OTOH they repel other Christians, especially YECs.
If Christians are ever going to be united on this topic, the "E" will
have to go from TE/EC! There is no way that YECs are ever going to
accept anything with "Evolution" in it. The alternative to not
changing is an endless war between TEs/ECs and YECs.
I have been encouraged by a Reflectorite privately that he liked the
term "Mediate Creation" and did not like "Evolutionary Creation" or
"Theistic Evolution". In a recent message I surprised myself by
writing: "I do not say that God *did* intervene in biological
history (I wasn't there - Job 38:4), just that I don't rule it out
and am prepared to consider it as an explanation in the case of
origins when there are gaps with no known naturalistic explanation."
So I thought that my thinking had snow shifted and there was no time
like the New Year to take the plunge! So now I will answer to the
title MC, although I will probably defend common elements in PC.
I see Mediate Creation as firmly in the Calvinistic Reformed
tradition as exemplified by Calvin, Hodge and Warfield. These men
reserved "Creation" for the initial ex nihilo bringing into being of
the raw material of the cosmos; but were prepared to allow much room
for God working through natural causes in the development of that
raw material. However, they rejected most strongly the idea that God
could not intervene supernaturally in that development, sometimes
calling it "Special Providence". None of them AFAIK used the word
"evolution" to describe their view.
Here are two quotes on Mediate Creation:
"Mediate and Immediate Creation. But while it has ever been the
doctrine of the Church that God created the universe out of nothing
by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous and
immediate, i. e., without the intervention of any second causes; yet
it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only of
the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have,
therefore, distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and
mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the
one precludes the idea of any preexisting substance, and of
cooperation, the other admits and implies both. There is evident
ground for this distinction in the Mosaic account of the
creation...It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material
comes within the Scriptural idea of creating...There is, therefore,
according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous
creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate,
progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second
causes." (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", 1892, James Clark & Co:
London, 1960 reprint,Vol. I, pp556-557).
"What distinction is signalized by the terms Creatio prima seu
immediata, and Creatio secunda seu mediata, and by who was 'it
introduced? The phrase Creatio prima seu immediata signifies the
originating act of the divine will whereby he brings, or has brought
into being, out of nothing, the principles and elementary essences of
all things. The phrase Creatio secunda seu mediata signifies the
subsequent act of God in originating different forms of things, and
especially different species of living beings out of the already
created essences of things. The Christian Church holds both."
(Hodge A.A., "Outlines of Theology", Second Edition, 1879, Banner of
Truth, 1983 reprint, pp238-239).
I look forward to clarifying this position further in the coming year. I
would hope that some of you who are unhappy with TE/EC and
yet don't find they can subscribe to PC, might join me? Who knows,
Mediate Creation might become the main Christian position on the
Creation - Evolution spectrum in the 21st century. Remember you
heard it here first! :-)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------