On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:18:41 -0500, Terry M. Gray wrote:
>SJ>"Mediate creationism is a way out of the impasse for scientists
who are Christians..."
>TG>I hesitate to enter this fray since I may not have a lot of time
to >follow up. I had some of these reactions to Stephen's original
>post on mediate creationism.
>
>Without slipping into the morass of demarcationism, I'd like to
>suggest that "mediate creationism" is fundamentally a theological
>notion rather than a scientific one.
Why is "theological" and "scientific" necessarily compartmentalised?
I can understand that theists might have to adapt to the conventions
of the secular world in which they find themselves, but why accept
them as *true*?
TG>From a Christian perspective in my opinion, every scientific
>explanation has a "divine action" *behind* it. In systematic
>theology, this is the ideas providence and concurrence.
Here Terry introduces "providence" when I was talking about
*creation*. I find that TE/ECs usually blur the distinction between
Creation and Providence in order to downplay or even deny the reality
of the former.
TG>I can readily explain projectile motion in terms of "mediate
>divine governance" but that doesn't take away from the need to
>discuss laws of physics.
Agreed, but who said it did? I was talking about *origins* not about
*ongoing operations*.
TG>In my view, the biological theory of evolution IS a form of
>"mediate creationism".
Disagree - "the biological theory of evolution" (whatever that is) is
at best a sub-set of "mediate creationism".
TG>Mediate creation is the "divine action" *behind* the evolution
>explanation.
I would invite Terry to define here what exactly *is* "the evolution
explanation". I suspect that much of what might be called "the
evolution explanation" becomes a collection of loosely related
sub-theories (ie. evolution *explanations*) if Mediate Creation is
true.
TG>The biological theory of evolution still stands as an
>explanation in terms of creational structures and behavior.
Again I invite Terry to state exactly *which* "biological theory of
evolution"? Dawkins'? Gould's?
And what exactly *is* "The biological theory of evolution"'s
"explanation in terms of creational structures and behavior'?
TG>Now if we are talking about acts of special creation (also a
>theological notion) of the YEC or PC type, then the observational
>data would be of a negative sort, i.e. there is NO prior evidence
>of any such thing existing or coming into existance from
>pre-existing things or that the complexity of a thing is such that
>it COULD NOT have come by the operation of creational structures
>and behavior.
I have read this three or four times and I can't work out what it's
saying. Perhaps Terry could make it clearer?
TG>The latter is the agenda of the ID folks. It seems to me that
>even some of them are willing to say that the scientific evidence
>(as the view it) merely calls for the existence of an intelligent
>designer without appealing to any theological notions of who or what
>that might be.
I agree that evidence of an "an intelligent designer" who designed
life's complex designs, would not show who He was. But Christians
would accept Him as, by definition, God.
TG>The bottom line is that mediate creation is not a way out of the
>impasse for Christian scientists. We've already used theological
>language to describe our notions whether it's mediate creation or
>some other version of creationism.
Well that's true but so what? Terry uses "theological language to
describe" his "notions" of *Theistic* Evolution or Evolutionary
*Creationism*. The beauty of Mediate Creation is that it would be
more acceptable (or less unacceptable) to moderate YECs. Anything
with the name "Evolution" in it will never be accepted by moderate
YECs.
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:26:15 -0500 (EST), Loren Haarsma wrote Re:
Irredeemably tainted motives
LH>Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Steve Jones,
>apparently.
No. Loren tries to change the thread from "Irredeemably tainted
words" to "Irredeemably tainted motives". I decline to discuss it
under that name, but will only discuss it only under the original
name. I made no claim about TE/ECs "motives".
[...]
SJ>2. they "have largely accomodated their thinking to scientific
>naturalism" and
LH>False.
>Back in May I posted (for the second time) a list of theological
>reasons people give for preferring TE/EC. For newcomers, its in the
>archives at http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199605/0065.html
>I had hoped this would demonstrate that TE/ECs are attempting to
>interpret the scientific data within a thoroughly Christian
>framework.
The key word is "thoroughly". Since TE/ECs virtually rule out God's
supernatural intervention in creation, I would not regard their
position as "thoroughly Christian".
LH>Let's try a simple example.
>
>Step 1: we use Steve Jones' definitions:
>
> Both "Evolutionary Creation" (EC) and "Progressive Creation" (PC)
> believe that God called the universe into being, and developed the
> Earth using natural processes in preparation for life.
>
> EC believes these natural processes, under God's normal providential
> control, were sufficient to bring about the origin and development of
> the living world.
> PC fully accepts the same normal providential control of God that EC
> does, but PC believes that it was necessary for God to directly and
> supernatural intervene at strategic points in biological history, to
> bring about the origin and development of the living world.
This is not strictly correct. Nowhere have I said that "it was
*necessary* for God to directly and supernatural intervene at
strategic points in biological history". It may not have been
"necessary" for God to do anything - but on the analogy of how God
intervened at strategic points in human history, it is likely that He
did. I certainly do not rule it out as TE/ECs do.
LH>Step 2: Our hypothetical friend, Mr. E.C. Smith, says, "I
>accept Steve Jones' definitions. I prefer EC over PC because it
>gives a more consistent hermeneutics of Genesis 1; the text suggests
>that God was consistent in his means of bringing about both the
>physical and the biological forms."
This begs the question that God did not "intervene" in the
"physical" also. Science has no viable naturalistic theory for the
*origin* of the "physical" universe and for the origin of life from
"physical" chemicals.
But if Genesis 1 teaches one thing it is that God issued a series
commands over time to bring about new things out of old, and this
well fits the MC/PC model. But since TE/EC believes that God gifted
the creation at the beginning, their model would be more comfortable
with one big command at the beginning.
LH>Now tell me, how has our friend --- who appealed only to your
>definitions and one Hermeneutical principle --- accommodated his
>thinking to scientific naturalism?
If Loren seriously believes that MC/PCs has more "accomodated their
thinking to scientific naturalism" than TE/ECs, then I cannot help
him!
LH>But more importantly, why do you make *general proclamations* on
>the thinking process of a whole group of people?
Because that is my experience of debating with a representative
sample of TE/ECs daily over the last two years.
LH>"Christian Democrats have accommodated their thinking to
>narcissism." "Christian Republicans have accommodated their
thinking to greed."
I make no comment on "Christian Democrats" or "Christian
Republicans". I don't debate with them, but I *do* debate with
TE/ECs.
LH>"ECs have accommodated their thinking to naturalism."
Yes. That's what I claim. The hostility with which the most
committed TE/ECs attack creationist supernaturalism has led me to
believe it as strongly as I believe anything.
LH>"PCs have accommodated their thinking to deistic
>god-only-in-the-gaps."
I note that Loren changes it from the usual "God-of-the-gaps" to
"god-only-in-the-gaps." This may be because he knows that I am not
ashamed to believe in the "God-of-the-gaps", although I emphatically
reject the "god-only-in-the-gaps".
I believe that God's supernatural activity must be seen in the "gaps"
where naturalistic explanations are absent. These gaps still
remain: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the
origin of life's major groups. That does not mean however that God
is not equally present where so-called naturalistic explanations
are available.
LH>Do you not see how such statements are destructive to dialog and a
>search for truth?
Since I believe it *is* the "truth", I can't see how it can be
"destructive" to "a search for" it.
And as for being "destructive to dialog", it is the TE/ECs who have
been most "destructive" to any *genuine "dialog". I have tried
"dialog" with TE/ECs for *two years* and mostly for my pains I have
received personal attacks and patronising suggestions about what my
messages should be like. Brian's poll was the turning point for me.
I realise now that even pulling my punches has not stopped TE/ECs
from being "destructive to dialog". I will not pull my punches any
more.
SJ>3. "have adopted TE/EC as a means of reaching their colleagues";
LH>And a thousand TE/ECs stand up and say (or write, or e-mail) in
>unison, "We have adopted TE/EC because, after looking at scripture
>and nature, we believe it to be true, and we serve a God of truth.
>We also want to reach our colleagues, but that is *not* our reason
>for adopting TE/EC." Will you stand and call them all
>self-deluded?
Since Loren leaves me no choice - to the extent that TE/ECs "have
largely accomodated their thinking to scientific naturalism" - yes.
SJ>4. "they have, in effect, abandoned the vast majority of their
>Christian layman brothers to those other Christian scientists-the
>scientific creationists."
LH>As a universal statement, demonstrably false by counter-example.
>I can name a few who have spent a great deal of time reaching out to
>their Christian layman brothers, and suffered for it.
No doubt - if they called themselves Theistic *Evolutionists*! The
problem has gone on too long now. The only way of reconciliation of
TEs/ECs with "their Christian layman brothers" is for them to stop
calling themselves "evolutionists" and identify themselves with what
Ratzsch calls "the newly emerging upper tier of the creationist
movement (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, pp84-85,
192)
LH>If you qualify that statement with "many" or perhaps even "most
>TE/ECs," then you have a point.
I clearly do not mean *every last one*. No doubt there may be some
TE/ECs who are less infected with naturalistic ways of
thinking who are working hard to heal the rift. But they are the
exception. Most TEs/ECs seem to have declared war on creationists.
Witness the hostile and patronising response that Phil Johnson got
when the criticised naturalistic evolution.
LH>Have you ever asked TE/ECs why they are reluctant to discuss these
>matters with their Christian layman brothers? What answers did you
>get? Here are some that I've heard:
>
>-a wish to avoid controversy in the local church over an issue not
> central to salvation
Its only a "controversy" now. If TEs had not alienated and ignored
"their Christian layman brothers" when the evolution controversy
began, there would not be such a "controversy" now. Even if a
controversy was inevitable, it is exacerbated by TE/ECs attacking
moderate creationists like Johnson.
LH>-a wish to avoid any risk of weakening someone's faith
>-fear that their Christian brothers and sisters will misjudge
> their faith and their motives.
No doubt aquainting "their Christian brothers and sisters" with the
hard facts of biological reality might "weaken someone's faith" but
conservative evangelical theologians are gradually doing it. And
Johnson is doing it too . TEs/ECs in the main have just given up the
task as hopeless.
LH>The third reason is not a particularly good one for remaining
>silent, but unfortunately real. I do think TE/ECs should have more
>"zeal for the truth" in confronting scientific creationism in the
>church.
The fact that they have to "confront" shows that its too late now.
Johnson and Hugh Ross are doing the job that TEs/ECs have largely
given up on. Paul was willing to "become all things to all men so
that by all possible means I might save some" (1Cor 9:22). If
TEs/ECs really wanted to `win' "their Christian brothers and sisters"
they would change their name for starters. A position with
"evolution" in its title is doomed from the outset.
SJ>"Mediate creationism is a way out of the impasse for scientists
>who are Christians, to: 1. win some of their scientific friends; 2.
>give Christian scientific guidance to their laymen Christian
>brothers; and 3. reconcile the moderate YECs."
>Perhaps Loren can say what exactly *is* TE/EC's strategy to
>"reconcile the moderate YECs"?
LH>The TE/EC strategy is identical to your strategy on many
>points: discussing hermeneutical principles; pointing out that God
>often works through mediate means; pointing out that a scientific
>explanation of an event or process does not exclude God.
Loren forgot to add: downplaying and even denying the supenatural,
criticising and even ridiculing moderate creationists!
LH>One important difference is this: if you anathematize the word
>"evolution" in church, Christian laymen will continue to encounter
>it in the secular literature, and they will not learn to distinguish
>when it is used in a proper technical sense from when it is loaded
>with metaphysical baggage. A fundamental part of the TE/EC strategy
>is to teach that distinction.
I have not noticed TE/ECs doing that much at all. Johnson has done a
much bettter job of pointing out to "Christian laymen" that
"creation" and "evolution" are not ncessarily antithetical:
"The concept of creation in itself does not imply opposition to
evolution, if evolution means only a gradual process by which one
kind of living creature changes into something different. A Creator
might well have employed such a gradual process as a means of
creation. "Evolution" contradicts "creation" only when it explicitly
or tacitly defined as fully naturalistic evolution-meaning evolution
that is not directed by any purposeful intelligence. Similarly,
"creation" contradicts evolution only when it means sudden creation,
rather than creation by progressive development. (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp3-4)
LH>I will revise and repeat a simple request, and direct it towards
>all readers. Challenge the person who disagrees with you to explain
>their reasons. Critique those reasons. But do not make blanket
>proclamations about their motives or reasoning.
TE/ECs have make "blanket proclamations about" creastionist's
"motives or reasoning" all the time. *My* "motives or reasoning"
have been the subject of constant "proclamations" for two years on
this Reflector. I have been called everything from a a "hypocrite"
to "paranoid". Loren and his TE/EC colleagues have rarely if ever
lifted a finger to defend me. What Loren wants is one rule for
Christian who are evolutionists and another for Christians who are
creationists.
LH>I hope this is not too much to ask.
It is now. Brian's snap poll was the turning point for me.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------