Thanks for your questions. Let my see what I can do for a reply.
1. Was it somehow mandatory that God use 'evolution only' in the formation
of all structures and life forms in the Creation? My answer would be: Of
course not. As the Creator, God was (is) free to do whatever is consistent
with his being and his will. Our goal as scientifically trained Christians
is to discover what we can about the character of the Creation and of its
formational history. By that means we intend to learn something about the
Creator's being and will.
On this general statement I presume that Johnson (and other defenders of ID
or "theistic realism") would agree with me. Where we disagree is in our
judgment regarding the particular character of the Creation and the manner
in which new forms were actualized in the course of time. Furthermore,
since promoters ot TR seem to spend most of their effort on arguing against
the possibility of evolutionary continuity, it appears that their professed
openness to the possibility of evolution functions only rhetorically.
2. Could I offer a brief statement of my position, especially regarding the
points at which it differs from ID and other forms of "episodic
creationism"? (I use the term 'episodic creationism' here to denote any
concept of God's creative work in which special emphasis is placed on the
need for occasional episodes of form-imposing divine intervention to bring
about the actualization of at least some novel forms, especially of some
novel life forms. Both ID and "special" creationism, both old-earth and
young-earth versions, fall in this broader category.)
Yes, but time constraints mean that I cannot write a new statement from
scratch. So following is a portion of something that is in press (I'll
withhold identifying the publication data for now). My apologies if it is a
bit longer than what you asked for.
Respectfully,
Howard Van Till
To What Kind of Creation Did God Give Being?
I see little promise for any substantive progress in the larger discussion
as long as the present 'creation versus evolution' format is allowed to set
the tone of the exchange. In effect, this simplistic either/or format
appears to give the preachers of naturalism a distinct advantage over
against all forms of episodic creationism, including ID. In order to see
how I come to this rather unconventional position, let me here outline
briefly my general approach to these issues.
Rather than constructing my position as a reaction to naturalism, I choose
to begin by affirming my commitment to the historic Christian doctrine of
creation. I do indeed see the entire universe--every atom, every physical
structure, every living organism--as a Creation that has being only as an
expression of God's effective will. God is the universe's Creator in the
fundamental sense of being the One who has given the universe its being.
The being of the universe is radically dependent on the effective will of
its Creator.
Essential to the being of the Creation is not only a set of properties that
characterize its multifarious substances, structures, and organisms, but
also a vast array of creaturely capabilities for action and interaction,
including capabilities for self-organization and transformation. Elementary
particles called quarks, for instance, possess the capabilities to interact
in such a way as to form nucleons (protons and neutrons). Nucleons, in
turn, have the capacities to interact and organize, by such processes as
thermonuclear fusion, into progressively larger atomic nuclei. Nuclei and
electrons have the dynamic capability to interact and organize into atoms.
On the macroscopic scale, vast collections of atoms interact to form the
inanimate structures of interest to astronomy-galaxies, stars, and planets.
On the microscopic scale, atoms interact chemically to form molecules;
molecules interact to form more complex molecules. Some molecular ensembles
might well possess the capabilities to organize into the fundamental units
that constitute living cells and organisms. Organisms and environments
interact and organize into ecosystems.
All of these organizational and transformational capabilities together
comprise what I have come to call the _formational economy_ of the
universe. The universe's formational economy is truly astounding. The
natural sciences have only just begun to uncover the remarkable and varied
capabilities that comprise it. Each day more of these formational
capabilities are discovered.
But there are two fundamentally differing concepts regarding the character
and robustness of the universe's formational economy. One concept
constitutes the fundamental presupposition of all forms of episodic
creationism. The other functions as the basis for the consideration of
non-episodic scenarios for the formational history of the Creation (or of
the universe, if you prefer).
Using the terminology I have just introduced, the question now at issue is
this: Is the formational economy of the Creation sufficiently robust to
bring about the actualization of all of the diverse physical structures and
life forms that have appeared in the course of time?
Fifteen centuries ago Augustine proposed a "Yes" answer to this question.
He envisioned God bringing the whole Creation into being in one
comprehensive act and gifting its fundamental substances with all of the
capabilities (he called them "seed principles") for actualizing the full
array of creaturely forms in the course of time. In his particular scenario
these forms became actualized, not in the sequentially connected manner of
evolution, but independently and contemporarily.
As did Augustine long ago, modern natural science also proceeds on the
expectation that the universe is equipped with a robust formational
economy. This strategy has proved remarkably fruitful, especially in the
arena of the physical sciences like geology, astronomy and cosmology in
their concern for reconstructing the formational history of the elements,
of spacetime, of planet Earth, and of stars and galaxies. Numerous unsolved
puzzles remain, of course, but the pattern of progress in accounting for
the formation of a broad spectrum of physical structures is abundantly
clear. The 'robust formational economy principle' continues to demonstrate
its fruitfulness as the basis for the scientific reconstruction of
formational histories of physical structures from minuscule atomic nuclei
to gigantic spiral galaxies.
What about the formational history of life forms? This presents the
biological sciences with questions of considerably greater difficulty than
those encountered in the physical sciences, but the same strategy certainly
appears to hold great promise. Contrary to Augustine's vision of a
side-by-side actualization of the whole array of life forms, however, the
biological sciences are now convinced by the evidence that the
actualization of new life forms has occurred in a sequential manner marked
by genealogical continuity. As is the case for the physical sciences,
biology is a long way from a complete understanding all of the details of
biotic evolution, but nearly every member of the professional scientific
community is convinced that the empirical evidence very strongly favors an
evolutionary scenario. Some critics have leveled the claim that, because
there are still so many gaps in our knowledge of the relevant processes and
their particular outcomes, evolution is a "theory is crisis." I think it
would be far more fair and accurate to describe it as a "theory in its
adolescence." It is now in a stage of rapid, ebullient, and sometimes
erratic development, but its basic character and potential are clearly
visible.
Like other forms of episodic creationism, the ID movement presumes that at
least some of today's _knowledge gaps_ (things we do not now know)
regarding evolutionary development must be taken as evidence for
corresponding _functional gaps_ (caused by missing capabilities) in the
formational economy of the Creation. Some proponents of the anti-evolution
perspective make the even bolder claim that they can now point to
convincing empirical evidence for the absence of certain creaturely
capabilities for self-organization or transformation, thereby opening up
gaps in the Creation's formational economy that could have been bridged
only by form-imposing episodes of assembly by 'intelligent design.'
But why would there be gaps in the formational economy of the Creation? In
the present context there can be only one answer to this question. If there
are gaps in the Creation's formational economy, it must be by God's choice.
God must have chosen to withhold certain formational gifts from it. If
Johnson, the ID theorists, and other episodic creationists are correct,
then God must have chosen to equip the Creation with an incomplete
formational economy--still a remarkable set of gifts, but lacking certain
key formational capabilities that would later make necessary a succession
of episodes of form-imposing interventions in the course of time. If, on
the other hand, God chose to gift the Creation with a robust and gapless
formational economy, then either Augustine's side-by-side actualization or
the sequential actualization envisioned by contemporary natural science
could represent the manifestation of God's intentions for the formational
history of the Creation.
For Christians the question is not, Creation or evolution? Rather, the real
question is, To what kind of Creation did God give being? One with gaps in
its formational economy? Or, one with a robust and gapless formational
economy?
The Optimally-Gifted Creation Perspective
For a number of reasons I strongly favor the second alternative--the vision
of a Creation gifted by God with a robust and gapless formational economy.
I call this the 'optimally-gifted Creation perspective.' More specifically,
since it incorporates the scientific concept of evolutionary development,
it could also be called the 'evolutionary creation perspective.' Among the
more important factors leading me to a preference for this perspective are
the following:
1. Because it is a perspective on the Creation we are called first of all
to recognize that the universe has being only as the outcome and
manifestation of the effective will of its Creator-God.
2. Because the universe is a Creation, every property and capability of its
creatures (from minuscule quarks to massive galaxies, and from elementary
particles to complex life forms) must be recognized as gifts of being that
have been given to them by the Creator. From this historic 'creationist'
perspective, no natural process, that is, no exercise of creaturely
capabilities, may be declared entirely void of 'intelligence' or purpose.
For a Christian to do so would, it seems to me, constitute an insult to the
Creator who gives being to each and every one of those 'natural'
capabilities.
3. The broad concept of a Creation gifted from the outset with a robust and
gapless formational economy comports with the heritage of early Christian
thought, such as that represented in Augustine's reading of the first three
chapters of Genesis. (See #4 in the reading list below.) This vision of an
optimally-gifted Creation effecting the Creator's intentions for its
formational history at all times stands in bold contrast to all episodic
creationist scenarios in which "purposeless, unintelligent, naturalistic
processes" are only occasionally punctuated by episodes of 'special
creation' or 'intelligent design.' The Intelligent Design concept as it has
been promoted by Johnson, with its intense emphasis on episodes of
form-imposing intervention and its frequent association of material
processes with naturalistic causes, could perhaps be more accurately called
a theory of 'punctuated naturalism.'
4. In the context of this vision of the giftedness of the Creation we have
reason to welcome every creaturely capability discovered by the natural
sciences (the systematic investigation of creaturely phenomena) and to
celebrate these gifts as manifestations of the Creator's unfathomable
creativity and unlimited generosity. Who but the Creator could give being
to a universe so richly gifted?
5. In the expectation that the Creation has been optimally gifted with a
robust and gapless formational economy we will not be tempted to search for
empirical evidence of gifts withheld, as if God's creative work would best
be known, not by the gifts of being that are present, but by those that are
absent. Furthermore, it would be highly misleading to label the scientific
methodology that follows from this high view of the Creation's giftedness
with the derogatory epithet, 'methodological naturalism,' thereby
suggesting that naturalism deserves ownership of contemporary scientific
methodology. The worldview of naturalism has no way to account for
existence of anything, certainly not of a Creation gifted with a robust and
gapless formational economy.
6. Holding to an optimally-gifted Creation perspective would enable the
Christian community to avoid the inverted scoring system of the
creation-evolution debate, in which every scientific discovery that gives
support to the robust formational economy principle is credited to the
worldview of naturalism, and the credibility of Christian theism is made to
appear as if it were dependent on demonstrating the existence of gaps in
the formational economy of the universe. I can see why the preachers of
naturalism love this scoring system, but why would a Christian allow such a
travesty to continue? For a Christian to concede ownership of the robust
formational economy principle to the preachers of naturalism would be a
blunder of colossal proportions. Furthermore, repeatedly to label those
Christians who embrace the concept of an optimally-gifted Creation with the
oxymoronic term 'theistic naturalism' is to demonstrate a reckless
disrespect for persons wholly committed to the historic Christian doctrine
of creation.
7. Finally, this perspective offers Christians a means by which the
Christian theological enterprise might benefit from the informed judgment
of the professional scientific community, which includes a large number of
Christians, regarding the nature of the Creation and the character of its
formational history. This would, I believe, provide theologians with the
occasion for articulating numerous theological questions to which the
specific character of the Creation is relevant. In the context of ID and
other forms of episodic creationism many of these important questions are,
unfortunately, being neglected.
For persons who would like to read more material from this perspective,
following is a list of other relevant publications by Howard Van Till:
1. "Can the Creationist Tradition be Recovered?" an essay review of the
book, Creation and the History of Science, by Christopher Kaiser, in
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 44, No. 3 (September,
1992), pp. 178-85.
2. "God and Evolution: An Exchange," with Phillip E. Johnson, First Things,
No. 34, June/July 1993, pp. 32-41.
3. "Special Creationism in Designer Clothing: A Response to The Creation
Hypothesis," an essay review published in Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith, Vol. 47, No. 2 (June, 1995), pp. 123-31.
4. "Basil, Augustine, and the Doctrine of Creation's Functional Integrity,"
Science and Christian Belief, Vol. 8 (1), April, 1996, pp. 21-38.
5. "No Place for a Small God," published as a chapter in John Marks
Templeton, ed., How Large is God? (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation
Press, 1997).
6. "The Creation: Intelligently Designed or Optimally Equipped?" to be
published in the October, 1998, issue of Theology Today.
7. "Basil and Augustine Revisited: The Survival of Functional Integrity"
published as part of an exchange with Jonathon Wells and John Mark Reynolds
in Origins and Design, Vol. 19, No. 1, Summer 1998, pp. 26-35