John
On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:35:08 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
JR>Prof. Van Till,
>
>Earlier, a discussant was insisting (and apparently still insists) that the
>major issue between evolutionary creationists and "theistic realists" (in
>Johnson's definition of the term, not the philosophical sense) was that ECs
>thought God -had to- use -only- evolution, whereas "theistic realists"
>thought only that God -might have chosen- to use only this.
What I originally said was:
"Johnson (and I for that matter) believe that God COULD have worked
"through a natural evolutionary process" but he (and I) do not believe that
He MUST have.
and
"That is the main difference between Johnson's (and my) Theistic Realist
position and Glenn's Theistic Naturalist position."
I then went on to say:
"But in this Glenn is not alone. It is exactly the Theistic Evolution position
and has been defended by TEs like Diogenes Allen and Howard Van Til..."
JR>As I repeatedly pointed out to him, this seems just flatly wrong as an
>empirical assertion, but as an EC yourself, or at least someone
>sympathetic to it, does this accurately characterize -your- view?
While no TE/EC AFAIK has said outright that "God MUST have worked
through a natural evolutionary process", their writings strongly imply it.
For example:
1) Van Till criticises those creationists who believe that God could have
intervened supernaturally in the created universe:
1a) He disparages those who believe God supernaturally intervened in the
affairs of the material world as believers in what he calls "interventionism":
"Adjacent to the pit of deism is the quicksand of interventionism.
According to that perspective, most things in the material world happen
"naturally" (in essence, naturalistically), but on certain special occasions
God breaks into this realm and supernaturally intervenes in the affairs of
the material world or its creatures. Once again, I certainly do not wish to
diminish or negate the reality of divine action in the cosmos; indeed, I want
to stress that biblical theism requires that we be aware of his constant
active presence. According to Scripture, God need not `intervene' or `break
into' the natural machinery of the cosmos as if it were already running
independently of him. God's active presence is required at all times, not just
on special occasions that demand supernatural intervention." (Van Till H.J.,
"The Fourth Day," 1986, p225)
The implication is that believing in God's supernatural intervention in the
world is unusual and wrong. Otherwise, why the special pejorative word
"interventionism"?
1b) Van Till criticises Johnson for disbelieving in "macroevolutionary
continuity":
"Johnson's entire program proceeds from his belief that scientific theories
regarding macroevolutionary continuity are the products, not of legitimate
inference from empirical data, but of naturalistic assumptions that have
been imposed on science by Darwin and his followers." (Van Till H.J., in
"God and Evolution: An Exchange I", First Things, Vol. 34, June/July
1993, p32. See http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
This would imply that such "macroevolutionary continuity" was sufficient
to develop life and God did not need to intervene supernaturally at any
point in that process. This is very close to saying that God must have
created only by natural evolutionary processes.
1c) He criticised Johnson for believing in what Van Till calls a
"`theokinetic' concept of creation" because Johnson believed that God
might have miraculously intervened in creation:
"A second aspect of Johnson's stance that deserves critical evaluation is his
definition or expectation of just what divine creative action is and how it
would manifest itself. Although Johnson does not offer us a careful
development of this important matter, there is nonetheless a
conceptualization of divine creation implicit in his writing. As I see it,
Johnson conceives of God's creative activity not only as that singular and
uniquely divine act of bringing the universe into being from nothing at the
beginning of time, but also as a succession of extraordinary acts in the
course of time whereby God forces matter and material systems (such as
DNA molecules and living organisms) to do things beyond their resident
capacities and therefore different from what they would ordinarily do. One
could call this a "theokinetic" concept of creation. Implicit in Johnson's
discussion is the expectation that "real" creative action is of the
"miraculous intervention" sort that would "make a difference," specifically
a difference that could be unequivocally confirmed by means of empirical
science. But is this performance of theokinetic acts the historic Christian
picture of what God's creative activity is and how it is manifested?" (Van
Till H.J., First Things, 34, June/July 1993, p34).
Again, why the special word "theokinetic" to describe the normal Christian
view that God intervened miraculously by "a succession of extraordinary
acts in the course of time"?
2) Van Till has proposed a theory of "functional integrity":
2a) He defines this "functional integrity" as:
"the world...has...no gaps in its economy of the sort that would require
God to act immediately temporarily assuming the role of creature to
perform functions within the economy of the creation that other creatures
have not been equipped to perform." (Van Till H.J., cited by Johnson P.E.,
"Creator or Blind Watchmaker?", First Things, January 1993, p10)
Here there is a strong implication that God must have created only through
natural evolutionary processes, otherwise God would be "assuming the role
of creature".
2b) In his response to Johnson in First Things, June/July 1993, Van Till
cites St Basil favourably as teaching that "the created world
was...[not]...lacking any capacity integral to its functional economy":
"It would seem, then, that Basil envisions the first appearance of each kind
of living creature occurring in like manner, the earth having been endowed
from the beginning with all of the powers necessary to physically realize the
whole array of lifeforms created in the mind of God. The elements of the
world, created by God from nothing at the beginning, lacked none of the
capacities that would be needed in the course of the ages to bring forth
what God intended. The economy of the created world was, from the
outset, complete-neither cluttered with things that had no useful function
nor lacking any capacity integral to its functional economy. In Basil's
words, "Our God has created nothing unnecessarily and has omitted
nothing that is necessary." (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p36)
The implication is that a world "lacking any capacity" is inferior to one that
had no such lack. This is tantamount to saying that God must have
endowed nature with all the capacities to develop itself, and therefore God
must have developed the created world solely by built-in natural processes.
2c) Van Till also cites St. Augustine as teaching that "Creation...was, from
the instant of its inception, characterized by functional integrity":
"In the context of our present concern, however, I wish to draw attention,
not to the particulars of Augustine's portrait of God's creative work,
articulated in the conceptual vocabulary of his day, but to one of his
underlying presuppositions concerning the character of the created world:
the universe was brought into being in a less than fully formed state but
endowed with the capacities to transform itself, in conformity with God's
will, from unformed matter into a marvelous array of structures and
lifeforms. In other words, Augustine envisioned a Creation that was, from
the instant of its inception, characterized by *functional integrity*. Every
category of structure and creature and process was conceptualized by the
Creator from the beginning but actualized in time as the created material
employed its God-given capacities in the manner and at the time intended
by the Creator from the outset. (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p37.
Emphasis in original.)
Again this strongly implies that God must have worked only through
natural processes, otherwise, on this view, the world would lack
"functional integrity".
2d) Van Till believes we need to recover Basil and Augustine's "forgotten
doctrine of Creation's functional integrity":
"I am convinced that the fruitfulness of our discourse would be vastly
improved if we could recover from their theological work what I have
come to call "the forgotten doctrine of Creation's functional integrity."
Basil and Augustine held high views of what God brought into being. The
created world envisioned by Basil and Augustine was a world endowed by
the Creator with a functionally complete economy-no gaps, no deficiencies,
no need for God to overpower matter or to perform theokinetic acts in
order to make up for capacities missing in the economy of the created
world." (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p37).
This virtually says that God must have created by natural evolutionary
processes, otherwise the world would have "deficiencies".
2e) Van Till dreams of the day when thedoctrine of Creation's functional
integrity will "once and for all displace all variants of the God-of-the-gaps
perspective":
"I have a dream that some day the forgotten doctrine of Creation's
functional integrity will be recovered; that it will once and for all displace
all variants of the God-of-the-gaps perspective; that the empirically derived
confidence in the concept of genealogical continuity will no longer give
apologetic advantage to the proponents of antitheistic naturalism; and that
the whole enterprise of scientific theory evaluation will no longer be
distorted by counterproductive entanglement with the authentically
religious debate between theism and atheism. When that happens, the
declarations of atheistic purposelessness offered by Jacques Monod,
William Provine, or Richard Dawkins and company will have to be
defended on their religious merit alone. They will have lost the services of
science, once held hostage by strident preachers of materialism, and once
held in distrustful suspicion by a misguided portion of the Christian
community." (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p38)
This implies that "all variants of the God-of-the-gaps perspective" (ie. God
supernaturally intervening in nature) are false. That is, God must have
created by natural, evolutionary processes.
3) Van Till endorses a theory of a "gapless economy":
3a) Van Till criticises Johnson for not believing in "a gapless economy":
"Against the background of the dynamics of this apologetic struggle, we
can see why Johnson wishes to place under a dark cloud of doubt and
suspicion those Christians who are caught in the act of favoring the
concept of a created world endowed with a gapless economy that could
conceivably provide the basis for the full genealogical continuity envisioned
in the macroevolutionary paradigm." (Van Till H.J., "God and Evolution:
An Exchange I," First Things, Vol. 34, June/July 1993, p34)
A "gapless economy" means that God did not need to supernaturally
intervene anywhere in the "created world".
3b) He criticises Johnson for assuming that there may be "gaps that can be
bridged only by acts of supernatural intervention":
"In discussions of this sort Johnson adamantly denies that he is espousing a
God-of-the-gaps strategy, but I must admit that I cannot distinguish his
argumentation on this point from that of the young-earth creationists,
which is built on the assumption that there must exist gaps in the
developmental economy of the created world-gaps that can be bridged only
by acts of supernatural intervention into the course of otherwise natural
phenomena. Gaps in our scientific understanding are not important in
themselves, but they gain profound significance by being recognized as
indicators of gaps in the economy of the created world." (Van Till H.J.,
June/July 1993, p34).
Again this indicates that Van Till believes that there are no "gaps that can
be bridged only by acts of supernatural intervention" and hence God must
have created only by natural evolutionary processes.
3c) Van Till presumes that all the capacities of living things were built-in
from the beginning, and became actualized over time, employing the
capacities "thoughtfully given to them by God at the beginning":
"As did Basil and Augustine, I believe that we may rightfully speak of God
calling into being at the beginning, from nothing, all material substance and
all creaturely forms (whether inanimate structures or animate lifeforms).
And, still standing with Basil and Augustine, I believe that we may
rightfully presume that the array of structures and lifeforms now present
was not yet present at the beginning, but became actualized in the course of
time as the created substances, employing the capacities thoughtfully given
to them by God at the beginning, functioned in a gapless creational
economy to bring about what the Creator called for and intended from the
outset." (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p38)
The use of "thoughtfully" implies that any lack of such capacities would be
a lack of thought by God. Therefore it implies that God must have worked
solely through the built-in natural, evolutionary processes.
The cumulative effect of these quotes from Van Till's writings is that
(athough he might deny it) for Van Till, God must have worked through a
natural evolutionary process.
The same basic assumption (ie. that God *must* have worked through a
natural evolutionary process) is, to a greater or lesser extent, contained
in all TE/EC arguments that I have seen. That is why they are TE/ECs
and not PC/MCs!
JR>I know the answer is obvious, but it might be useful if someone of your
>stature would repeat it, if only for the sake of others who might be misled.
>(The combination of ignorance and eloquence is common and powerful.)
Howard's "stature" cuts no ice with me. Nor do your ad hominems about
my alleged "ignorance and eloquence."
JR>If any other ECs out there would care to chime in, that'd be
>great, -especially- if there are any who -do- agree with this unusual
>claim.)
>
>Thanks in advance.
As can be seen from the quotes above from Van Till's writings, it is
*not* an "unusual claim".
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John
On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:35:08 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
JR>Prof. Van Till,
>
>Earlier, a discussant was insisting (and apparently still insists) that the
>major issue between evolutionary creationists and "theistic realists" (in
>Johnson's definition of the term, not the philosophical sense) was that ECs
>thought God -had to- use -only- evolution, whereas "theistic realists"
>thought only that God -might have chosen- to use only this.
What I originally said was:
"Johnson (and I for that matter) believe that God COULD have worked
"through a natural evolutionary process" but he (and I) do not believe that
He MUST have.
and
"That is the main difference between Johnson's (and my) Theistic Realist
position and Glenn's Theistic Naturalist position."
I then went on to say:
"But in this Glenn is not alone. It is exactly the Theistic Evolution position
and has been defended by TEs like Diogenes Allen and Howard Van Til..."
JR>As I repeatedly pointed out to him, this seems just flatly wrong as an
>empirical assertion, but as an EC yourself, or at least someone
>sympathetic to it, does this accurately characterize -your- view?
While no TE/EC AFAIK has said outright that "God MUST have worked
through a natural evolutionary process", their writings strongly imply it.
For example:
1) Van Till criticises those creationists who believe that God could have
intervened supernaturally in the created universe:
1a) He disparages those who believe God supernaturally intervened in the
affairs of the material world as believers in what he calls "interventionism":
"Adjacent to the pit of deism is the quicksand of interventionism.
According to that perspective, most things in the material world happen
"naturally" (in essence, naturalistically), but on certain special occasions
God breaks into this realm and supernaturally intervenes in the affairs of
the material world or its creatures. Once again, I certainly do not wish to
diminish or negate the reality of divine action in the cosmos; indeed, I want
to stress that biblical theism requires that we be aware of his constant
active presence. According to Scripture, God need not `intervene' or `break
into' the natural machinery of the cosmos as if it were already running
independently of him. God's active presence is required at all times, not just
on special occasions that demand supernatural intervention." (Van Till H.J.,
"The Fourth Day," 1986, p225)
The implication is that believing in God's supernatural intervention in the
world is unusual and wrong. Otherwise, why the special pejorative word
"interventionism"?
1b) Van Till criticises Johnson for disbelieving in "macroevolutionary
continuity":
"Johnson's entire program proceeds from his belief that scientific theories
regarding macroevolutionary continuity are the products, not of legitimate
inference from empirical data, but of naturalistic assumptions that have
been imposed on science by Darwin and his followers." (Van Till H.J., in
"God and Evolution: An Exchange I", First Things, Vol. 34, June/July
1993, p32. See http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
This would imply that such "macroevolutionary continuity" was sufficient
to develop life and God did not need to intervene supernaturally at any
point in that process. This is very close to saying that God must have
created only by natural evolutionary processes.
1c) He criticised Johnson for believing in what Van Till calls a
"`theokinetic' concept of creation" because Johnson believed that God
might have miraculously intervened in creation:
"A second aspect of Johnson's stance that deserves critical evaluation is his
definition or expectation of just what divine creative action is and how it
would manifest itself. Although Johnson does not offer us a careful
development of this important matter, there is nonetheless a
conceptualization of divine creation implicit in his writing. As I see it,
Johnson conceives of God's creative activity not only as that singular and
uniquely divine act of bringing the universe into being from nothing at the
beginning of time, but also as a succession of extraordinary acts in the
course of time whereby God forces matter and material systems (such as
DNA molecules and living organisms) to do things beyond their resident
capacities and therefore different from what they would ordinarily do. One
could call this a "theokinetic" concept of creation. Implicit in Johnson's
discussion is the expectation that "real" creative action is of the
"miraculous intervention" sort that would "make a difference," specifically
a difference that could be unequivocally confirmed by means of empirical
science. But is this performance of theokinetic acts the historic Christian
picture of what God's creative activity is and how it is manifested?" (Van
Till H.J., First Things, 34, June/July 1993, p34).
Again, why the special word "theokinetic" to describe the normal Christian
view that God intervened miraculously by "a succession of extraordinary
acts in the course of time"?
2) Van Till has proposed a theory of "functional integrity":
2a) He defines this "functional integrity" as:
"the world...has...no gaps in its economy of the sort that would require
God to act immediately temporarily assuming the role of creature to
perform functions within the economy of the creation that other creatures
have not been equipped to perform." (Van Till H.J., cited by Johnson P.E.,
"Creator or Blind Watchmaker?", First Things, January 1993, p10)
Here there is a strong implication that God must have created only through
natural evolutionary processes, otherwise God would be "assuming the role
of creature".
2b) In his response to Johnson in First Things, June/July 1993, Van Till
cites St Basil favourably as teaching that "the created world
was...[not]...lacking any capacity integral to its functional economy":
"It would seem, then, that Basil envisions the first appearance of each kind
of living creature occurring in like manner, the earth having been endowed
from the beginning with all of the powers necessary to physically realize the
whole array of lifeforms created in the mind of God. The elements of the
world, created by God from nothing at the beginning, lacked none of the
capacities that would be needed in the course of the ages to bring forth
what God intended. The economy of the created world was, from the
outset, complete-neither cluttered with things that had no useful function
nor lacking any capacity integral to its functional economy. In Basil's
words, "Our God has created nothing unnecessarily and has omitted
nothing that is necessary." (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p36)
The implication is that a world "lacking any capacity" is inferior to one that
had no such lack. This is tantamount to saying that God must have
endowed nature with all the capacities to develop itself, and therefore God
must have developed the created world solely by built-in natural processes.
2c) Van Till also cites St. Augustine as teaching that "Creation...was, from
the instant of its inception, characterized by functional integrity":
"In the context of our present concern, however, I wish to draw attention,
not to the particulars of Augustine's portrait of God's creative work,
articulated in the conceptual vocabulary of his day, but to one of his
underlying presuppositions concerning the character of the created world:
the universe was brought into being in a less than fully formed state but
endowed with the capacities to transform itself, in conformity with God's
will, from unformed matter into a marvelous array of structures and
lifeforms. In other words, Augustine envisioned a Creation that was, from
the instant of its inception, characterized by *functional integrity*. Every
category of structure and creature and process was conceptualized by the
Creator from the beginning but actualized in time as the created material
employed its God-given capacities in the manner and at the time intended
by the Creator from the outset. (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p37.
Emphasis in original.)
Again this strongly implies that God must have worked only through
natural processes, otherwise, on this view, the world would lack
"functional integrity".
2d) Van Till believes we need to recover Basil and Augustine's "forgotten
doctrine of Creation's functional integrity":
"I am convinced that the fruitfulness of our discourse would be vastly
improved if we could recover from their theological work what I have
come to call "the forgotten doctrine of Creation's functional integrity."
Basil and Augustine held high views of what God brought into being. The
created world envisioned by Basil and Augustine was a world endowed by
the Creator with a functionally complete economy-no gaps, no deficiencies,
no need for God to overpower matter or to perform theokinetic acts in
order to make up for capacities missing in the economy of the created
world." (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p37).
This virtually says that God must have created by natural evolutionary
processes, otherwise the world would have "deficiencies".
2e) Van Till dreams of the day when thedoctrine of Creation's functional
integrity will "once and for all displace all variants of the God-of-the-gaps
perspective":
"I have a dream that some day the forgotten doctrine of Creation's
functional integrity will be recovered; that it will once and for all displace
all variants of the God-of-the-gaps perspective; that the empirically derived
confidence in the concept of genealogical continuity will no longer give
apologetic advantage to the proponents of antitheistic naturalism; and that
the whole enterprise of scientific theory evaluation will no longer be
distorted by counterproductive entanglement with the authentically
religious debate between theism and atheism. When that happens, the
declarations of atheistic purposelessness offered by Jacques Monod,
William Provine, or Richard Dawkins and company will have to be
defended on their religious merit alone. They will have lost the services of
science, once held hostage by strident preachers of materialism, and once
held in distrustful suspicion by a misguided portion of the Christian
community." (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p38)
This implies that "all variants of the God-of-the-gaps perspective" (ie. God
supernaturally intervening in nature) are false. That is, God must have
created by natural, evolutionary processes.
3) Van Till endorses a theory of a "gapless economy":
3a) Van Till criticises Johnson for not believing in "a gapless economy":
"Against the background of the dynamics of this apologetic struggle, we
can see why Johnson wishes to place under a dark cloud of doubt and
suspicion those Christians who are caught in the act of favoring the
concept of a created world endowed with a gapless economy that could
conceivably provide the basis for the full genealogical continuity envisioned
in the macroevolutionary paradigm." (Van Till H.J., "God and Evolution:
An Exchange I," First Things, Vol. 34, June/July 1993, p34)
A "gapless economy" means that God did not need to supernaturally
intervene anywhere in the "created world".
3b) He criticises Johnson for assuming that there may be "gaps that can be
bridged only by acts of supernatural intervention":
"In discussions of this sort Johnson adamantly denies that he is espousing a
God-of-the-gaps strategy, but I must admit that I cannot distinguish his
argumentation on this point from that of the young-earth creationists,
which is built on the assumption that there must exist gaps in the
developmental economy of the created world-gaps that can be bridged only
by acts of supernatural intervention into the course of otherwise natural
phenomena. Gaps in our scientific understanding are not important in
themselves, but they gain profound significance by being recognized as
indicators of gaps in the economy of the created world." (Van Till H.J.,
June/July 1993, p34).
Again this indicates that Van Till believes that there are no "gaps that can
be bridged only by acts of supernatural intervention" and hence God must
have created only by natural evolutionary processes.
3c) Van Till presumes that all the capacities of living things were built-in
from the beginning, and became actualized over time, employing the
capacities "thoughtfully given to them by God at the beginning":
"As did Basil and Augustine, I believe that we may rightfully speak of God
calling into being at the beginning, from nothing, all material substance and
all creaturely forms (whether inanimate structures or animate lifeforms).
And, still standing with Basil and Augustine, I believe that we may
rightfully presume that the array of structures and lifeforms now present
was not yet present at the beginning, but became actualized in the course of
time as the created substances, employing the capacities thoughtfully given
to them by God at the beginning, functioned in a gapless creational
economy to bring about what the Creator called for and intended from the
outset." (Van Till H.J., June/July 1993, p38)
The use of "thoughtfully" implies that any lack of such capacities would be
a lack of thought by God. Therefore it implies that God must have worked
solely through the built-in natural, evolutionary processes.
The cumulative effect of these quotes from Van Till's writings is that
(athough he might deny it) for Van Till, God must have worked through a
natural evolutionary process.
The same basic assumption (ie. that God *must* have worked through a
natural evolutionary process) is, to a greater or lesser extent, contained
in all TE/EC arguments that I have seen. That is why they are TE/ECs
and not PC/MCs!
JR>I know the answer is obvious, but it might be useful if someone of your
>stature would repeat it, if only for the sake of others who might be misled.
>(The combination of ignorance and eloquence is common and powerful.)
Howard's "stature" cuts no ice with me. Nor do your ad hominems about
my alleged "ignorance and eloquence."
JR>If any other ECs out there would care to chime in, that'd be
>great, -especially- if there are any who -do- agree with this unusual
>claim.)
>
>Thanks in advance.
As can be seen from the quotes above from Van Till's writings, it is
*not* an "unusual claim".
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
----------------------------------------------------------------------_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--