Please note my new email address: sejones@iinet.net.au (the two
i's is not a typo).
On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 07:25:58 +1000 Jonathan Clarke wrote:
[...]
JCn his second July 8th post Stephen Jones made the statement
SJ>TE/EC is marginalised in *both* mainstream "science" and "theology"'.
JC>Both TE and EC may be fuzzy terms, perhaps as fuzzy as ID. However,
>for the sake of argument I take an TE or EC someone who believes that God
>creates in the biological realm by way of evolutionary processes.
This is an inadequate definition. A Mediate Creationist, Progressive
Creationist and maybe even a Fiat (Young-Earth) Creationist could
agree with that, at least up to a point.
Only if TE/ECs claim that "God creates in the biological realm" SOLELY
"by way of" FULLY NATURALISTIC "evolutionary processes" is their position
distinctive from the above positions. But then it is indistinguishable from
Deistic Evolution:
"Deistic Evolution
Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the
best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic
evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,
producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws
which its development has followed. Thus, he programmed the process.
Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world, becoming, so
to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created order is free
of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of everything, but only
the first living form was directly created. All the rest of God's
creating has been done indirectly. God is the Creator, the ultimate
cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate cause. Thus, except
for its view of the very beginning of matter, deistic evolution is
identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies that there is any
direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing creative process."
(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, p480)
JC>In this case the above statement cannot be sustained.
Disagree. First, "TE/EC" *is* "marginalised in...mainstream "science".
Despite many TE/ECs being highly qualified and respected scientists, they
have made no distinctive TE/EC contribution to mainstream science.
Indeed, AFAIK TE/ECs don't even try, because they have nothing to
add that is distinctively TE/EC to mainstream science:
"Theistic evolutionists fare little better. Most theistic evolutionists do not
challenge either the conclusions of evolutionary biology or its naturalistic
methodology, but argue merely that evolution by natural processes is
compatible with theistic religion. To the extent that they go farther, and
postulate a supernatural directing force in evolution, they violate the rules
of methodological naturalism and are no more welcome in scientific
discussions than outright creationists. In either case, what scientific topic is
there to talk about?" (Johnson P.E., "Starting a Conversation about
Evolution." Review of The Battle of the Beginnings", by Del Ratzsch,
Access Research Network, 1996.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm)
Moreover, Naturalistic Evolutionists (NEs) are contemptuous of TE/ECs
attempts to show that Christianity and naturalistic evolution are
compatible. For example, Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg
respects "religious conservatives" (ie. creationists), even though he thinks
they "are wrong in what they believe". But he regards "religious liberals"
(ie. TE/ECs) as "not even wrong":
"Wolfgang Pauli was once asked whether he thought that a particularly
illconceived physics paper was wrong. He replied that such a description
would be too kind-the paper was not even wrong. I happen to think that
the religious conservatives are wrong in what they believe, but at least they
have not forgotten what it means really to believe something. The religious
liberals seem to me to be not even wrong." (Weinberg S., "Dreams of a
Final Theory," 1992, pp257-258)
Second, "TE/EC" *is* "marginalised in...mainstream...theology"', in the
sense that while TE/EC might be the dominant view in liberal Christian
seminaries, it is a view that is increasingly becoming marginalised
in the larger number of conservative Christian seminaries and Bible
colleges. Opinion polls show that nearly 50% of the *general public*
believe that "God created mankind...within the last 10,000 years", with
only 40% believing that "God guided this process":
"In this broad sense, the vast majority of Americans are creationists.
According to a 1991 Gallup poll, 47 percent of a national sample agreed
with the following statement: "God created mankind in pretty much our
present form sometime within the last 10,000 years." Another 40 percent
think that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced
forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." Only
9 percent of the sample said that they believed in biological evolution as a
purposeless process not guided by God." (Johnson P.E., "Darwinism's
Rules of Reasoning," in "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, 1992.
http://wri.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter1.html)
But TE/ECs must share this latter 40% with Old Earth/Progressive
Creationists, so even among "the *general public*" TE/EC views are a
minority. Therefore, I would expect among *Christians* the TE/EC
views would be an even smaller minority.
JC>If we survey the present scene there are many leading theologians and
>scientists who argue for TE/EC. Among the theologians there are people
>such as Ted Peters, Mark Worthing, and Pope John Paul II.
I have never heard of Ted Peters or Mark Worthing, and I have read fairly
widely in the Creation/Evolution debate. As for the Pope, I am not sure that
he really is a TE/EC, let alone a "theologian".
JC>Among the scientists Sam Berry, Gillian Prance, Franciso Ayala.
Again I have never heard of Gillian Prance. And AFAIK Ayala is a no longer
a theist. Berry is indeed a TE, but I am not aware of him making any case
for TE/EC within the scientific community.
JC>Among those who
>are both scientists and theologians there is Arthur Peacocke, John
>Polkinghorne, and Robert Russell.
I have never heard of Robert Russell. Peacocke AFAIK, denies the Biblical
miracles, including the resurrection of Christ, so he is probably a DE, and I
doubt whether Christian TE/ECs would welcome him as a bedfellow.
Polkinhorne is probably a TE, but he denies some Biblical miracles,
although he does accept the resurrection of Christ. But Polkinhorne is an
astrophysicist and has AFAIK made little or no contribution to *biological*
TE/EC.
I would appreciate references to books or journal articles where all
the above claimed TE/ECs have argued the case for TE/EC in the scientific
community.
JC>In the 19th century we have scientists
It is common for TEs to claim support from some 19th century theologians
and Christian scientist who accepted evolution. But there is a basic flaw in
this, in that "evolution" in the 19th and early 20th centuries (before the
Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis), meant something different from what it
does today:
"At the turn of the century it was relatively easy to be a Darwinist and also
a theist, because "evolution" allowed room for God to act in nature, for
example by providing the needed variation. Provine reckons that the
majority of evolutionists at that time were theists who thought of evolution
as divinely guided or inherently progressive. With the coming of the
synthesis, biological evolution became wedded to physicalist theories of
nature which absolutely barred consideration of purposeful forces in
evolution. NeoDarwinists found no need or place for purposeful forces in
their theory and hence concluded that evolution is unguided and
purposeless." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p235)
Also, most, if not all of the above had important reservations about
Darwin's theory, and some allowed for supernatural intervention. IMHO
some (if not most), of the above would be Mediate of Progressive
Creationists today.
JC>such as Asa Gray
Gray never fully accepted Darwin's theory and in particular did not
accept that variation (ie. mutation) was undirected:
"Darwin's chief American supporter, Asa Gray, was deeply concerned with
the problem of reconciling selection and design and eventually qualified his
support by accepting supernatural control of variation." (Bowler P.J., "The
Eclipse of Darwinism", 1983, p28).
If Gray was alive today, IMHO he would be a Mediate or Progressive
Creationist, not a TE/EC.
JC>and James Dana
Dana had reservations about the power of natural selection and believed in
saltations. IMHO today he would be called a Progressive Creationist:
"As we have noted, Dana held to a catastrophist position in biology,
arguing that in the years from the initial creation of life, various species had
been destroyed by catastrophes and replaced by divine creation. His model
of the history of life was progressivist not in the sense that it presumed one
species progressing into another but rather perceived each new creation
being higher than its predecessor in the chain of life.... By 1883, Dana had
clearly accepted the Darwinian cornerstone of evolution-namely, natural
selection. He conceded that as a model for explaining the survival of
particular organic characteristics it had great explanatory potential, though
he stopped short of accepting the contention that it was the sole mover of
evolutionary history. He believed that other factors (notably the
Lamarckian idea of the use and disuse of organs) also played a part; he was
a good deal more willing than Darwin to acknowledge his debt to Lamarck.
Dana also remained disconcerted by the imperfect state of the geological
record. The signal absence of paleontological support led him, like many
others, to the idea of saltatory evolution-that is, evolution that occurred
discontinuously, involving sudden transformations of species rather than
gradual incremental changes. On the question of human evolution, Dana
sided with Wallace: he was prepared to concede the derivation of the
human race from an inferior species, but he insisted that it originated in a
special introduction of divine creative energy." (Livingstone D.N., "Darwin's
Forgotten Defenders, 1987, pp73-75).
JC>and theologians like James Orr,
While Orr accepted `evolution', he did not necessarily accept it in the
sense that the word means today, ie. Darwinism:
"Orr was repeatedly at pains to point out that the theory of evolution ought
not to be equated with its specifically Darwinian formulation. He never for
a moment doubted that evolution had occurred and that it operated under
the universal reign of natural law. The idea of the "genetic derivation of
one order or species from another" had found wide support among
practicing scientists, and Orr saw no reason to dispute the general
principle....But writing during a period when Darwinism was in eclipse, Orr
exploited to the full the rival evolutionary alternatives arising in many
quarters." (Livingstone D.N., 1987, pp140-141)
Orr postulated "an entirely supernatural origin" for Adam's body
as well as his mind and soul:
"Orr approached the question of human development in his Stone
lectures at Princeton in 1903-04. They were subsequently published as
God's Indulge in Man. Two important points arise from his discussions.
First, Orr devoted quite a lot of space to establishing the discontinuity
between human and animal life in both physical and mental terms.
Calling on the testimony of the evolutionary biologists themselves, he
demonstrated to his own satisfaction the "enormous distance that
separates man from the highest animals, alike in a bodily and in a
mental state." He could have left the matter there, applying a saltatory
theory of evolution to human emergence, but he seems to have wanted
to go further. For him, the ideas of mind, soul, and the image of God
were so closely bound together as to be almost conflated. He obviously
felt the need to postulate an entirely supernatural origin for them, not
least to preserve the biblical doctrine of the fall. And since the mind
and brain were so intimately related, he had to push on toward an
entirely supernatural creation of the first human being in toto."
(Livingstone D.N., 1987, p142).
In fact Orr regarded the "opposition to the supernatural" and the "refusal to
recognise anything in nature, life, or history, outside the lines of natural
development" as having "no kindredship" with "Christianity":
"It need not further be denied that between this view of the world involved
in Christianity, and what is sometimes termed " the modern view of the
world," there exists a deep and radical antagonism. This so-called "modern
view of the world," indeed,-and it is important to observe it, - is, strictly
speaking, not one view, but many views a group of views,-most of them as
exclusive of one another as they together are of Christianity. The phrase,
nevertheless, does point to a homogeneity of these various systemsto a
bond of unity which runs through them all, and holds them together in spite
of their many differences. This common feature is their thoroughgoing
opposition to the supernatural,-at least of the specifically miraculous,-their
refusal to recognise anything in nature, life, or history, outside the lines of
natural development. Between such a view of the world and Christianity, it
is perfectly correct to say that there can be no kindredship." (Orr J., "The
Christian View of God and the World", 1989, reprint, p9)
Therefore, I believe that today Orr would be regarded as either a Progressive
or Mediate Creationist.
JC>B.B. Warfield
Warfield likewise, while he did believe in `evolution' did not believe
that Darwinism, and maintained that supernatural intervention could
not be ruled out:
"Warfield's endorsement of Darwin was not unqualified, however. He held
that any scientific theory that in principle subverted providence or
occasional supernatural interference must ultimately prove
unacceptable...Warfield certainly lamented the spiritually disruptive effects
of the theory of evolution on its chief advocate, and he expressed his
annoyance at Darwin's absolutist claims for his natural selection
mechanism." (Livingstone D.N., 1987, pp115-116).
Warfield, in his later years, did not believe that evolution was adequate to
account for all the facts:
"Evolution, he [Warfield] said, had helped unravel some exceptionally
difficult problems, but that surely did not mean that it could account for all
facts. He urged caution and humility on the part of proponents of the
theory, especially in light of the fact that there was little consensus within
the scientific fraternity itself." (Livingstone D.N., 1987, pp146-147).
Warfield's friend and biographer, Samuel Craig, said that he "`outgrew'
Darwinism":
"That Dr. McCosh did not succeed in making him a Darwinian, as in the
case of so many of his fellow-students, finds its explanation in the fact, as
he himself has told us, that knowing his Origin of Species and the
Variations of Animals and Plants Under Domestication" almost from A to
Izzard" he was already a "Darwinian of the purest water" before coming
under McCosh's influence-a position which he later repudiated, not without
warrant as even biologists have come more and more to admit. 3
[...]
3 Though Warfield early "outgrew" Darwinism, as he put it, he maintained
to the end a keen and informed interest in the theories of evolution that
from time to time made their appearance. He never denied that evolution is
a method that God has employed in bringing the world to its present stage
of development, but he did deny with emphasis that it is the only method
He has employed. Its fatal weakness as an all-sufficient explanation, he
maintained, is its inability to account not only for the origin of things but
for the appearance of anything specifically new since the creation of the
original world stuff, such as man and particularly the God-man and all the
redemptive deeds that have their center in Him. To account for the
specifically new we need, he ever alleged, an act of God analogous to what
we know as miracle-a "flash of the will that can." He did not ignore the
basic difference between creation and evolution. Since creation is
origination and evolution modification it will remain forever true, he
insisted, that what is created is not evolved and what is evolved is not
created." (Craig S.G. (ed.), "Benjamin B. Warfield," in Warfield B.B.,
"Biblical and Theological Studies," 1968, p.xii)
JC>and James McCosh
While McCosh was undoubtedly the most pro-evolutionary theologian of those
listed, even he did not fully accept Darwinism:
"McCosh cited the anthropological evidence of Lubbock and Huxley to
establish a wide gulf between animal and human intellectual capacity. At
the same time, he left the matter of the formation of the human body-as
opposed to the soul-an open question. And he dismissed the monistic
claims of some natural selectionists on the grounds that there were
unbridgeable gaps in the natural order, notably between the organic and
inorganic, the conscious and unconscious, plant life and animal life."
(Livingstone D.N., 1987, p108).
JC>as well as activists like Charles Kingsley
Kingsley is probably the only *real* TE in the list. But he was also
the least scientific and theological, being a clergyman writer of
historical novels:
"Kingsley, Charles (b. June 12, 1819, Holne Vicarage, Devon-d. Jan. 23,
1875, Eversley, Hampshire), Anglican clergyman, teacher and writer whose
novels, widely read in the Victorian era of reform, influenced social
developments in Britain. He was one of the first churchmen to support
Charles Darwin's theories and to seek a reconciliation between modern
science and Christian doctrine." ("Kingsley, Charles", Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1984, Vol. v, p821)
JC>who would today would be called TE/EC.
Disagree, except for Kingsley. And maybe if Kingsley was alive today
and saw the results of Darwinism, he wouldn't be a TE/EC either!
JC>We may disagree with the people if we wish, but we can hardly dismiss
>them as marginalised in science or theology, either now or in the past.
>If these folk are marginalised, then we need more marginalised people
>like them.
I did not say that "these folk are marginalised". Even if it be granted
that they were all TE/ECs (which IMHO they weren't), they all lived in
the *19th century*. I said that "TE/EC *is* marginalised", ie. *today*.
And with the rise of the ID movement, as an alternative to YEC, IMHO
TE/EC is going to be even more marginalised than it already is!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------