Thanks for your thought provoking response. I am sorry that my reply has been so
tardy. Part of the reason has been my involvement with the visit of professor Sam
Berry to Canberra. His trip to Australia has been very successful and he appears to
have been well received among Christians, the media, and researchers. If this is
what it means to be marginalised, perhaps we need more marginalised people.
However, I digress.
Stephen E. Jones wrote:
> 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.
>
> SJ>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:
So let's try and refine what we mean by TE. I have not over enamoured by the term
(more on why later) but for the moment let's stick with it. All TE's that I have
encountered would see their position as quite different from that of DE (a useful
term and thank you for reminding us of it and the definition from Erickson).
So where does TE differ from DE? I would see that they differ in three areas.
First of all that deism regards God has giving only the initial impetus to creation
and then leaving the rest to unfold by its own internal logic. A theist would
always regard God as having some form sovereignty over events. Secondly, theists
because of this recognise the major role of divine providence in the world, which
deists deny. Thirdly, deists deny revelation and that that implies.
> "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.
>
> SJ>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:
AFAIK is a new one on me - does it mean "As far as I know?"
"Distinctive TE/EC contributions to science" is another version of the old question
as to whether there is a distinctively Christian version of X. In some cases this
(art, literature, ethics, for example) this may well be the case. Is it true it all
cases? I do think so. Is there a specifically "Christian" way to bake a cake,
build a telescope, study the created world? My understanding, from reading Foster,
Jaki, and Hooykaas, is that the scientific approach is based on a world view that is
essentially Christian. I would see as futile attempting to say that there can be a
specifically "Christian" science although there are specially Christian ideas on the
application of science, especially in the areas of ethical uses of scientific
knowledge and it the ethical ways of obtaining scientific knowledge.
I personally don't like the term "TE" because it conflates a theological position
(theism) with a scientific explanation. TE really as clumsy a term a "theistic
plate tectonics" or "theistic gravity". My understanding of theism (as opposed to
deism or semi deism) does not presuppose any particular mode of divine action, but
rather Takes at its starting point that God works in the world, by creation and
providence, so that what science is discovers since simply the way in which God
works. Deism however, as you have correctly pointed out presumes that God only
works through secondary causes, and then insists that God's role is confined to the
beginning. Semi-deists recognise, like deists, that the world operates by its
internal logic. However for God to specifically act He must intervene in the world
by an irruptive event. Such events are not amenable to science and the history of
life must have witnessed at least several such events. However in this conversation
we seem to be stuck with the term, so I will continue to use it.
> "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.
>
Johnson's logic is rather opaque here. Perhaps it needs a legal mind to understand
it (grin)! From where I see things TE's don't challenge the conclusions of
evolutionary biology because (rightly or not) they don't see the need to, at least
not in the sense that Johnson says that it needs to be challenged. I don't think
that Johnson rhetoric actually says anything germane at this point.
> 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)
I don't think that Weinberg's statement has any relevance to whether TE/EC has
anything useful to contribute here. He is not saying anything about the scientific
merits of TE/EC people, but making a statement on metaphysics. However his theology
and metaphysics in my reading seems rather naive. In any case, many TE/EC folk
would not consider themselves "theological liberals". Weinberg's labelling of such
people indicates how limited is understanding is in the area.
> 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.
>
These surveys are of course done in the US. Does what the majority of the American
public believe determine what is correct? A survey done in Australia or the UK
would give different results. Are Australians or British better or worse at
deciding such issues?
I agree that TE/EC is a probably minority among the Christian public. But what is
that to do with the issue? It is simply a reflection of the theological ignorance
of most Christians. It says nothing about whether the theology itself is right or
wrong. Interesting that Johnson does not give any evidence to back up his claim
that "it is a view that is increasingly becoming marginalised in the larger number
of conservative Christian seminaries and Bible colleges". Integrating biology and
theology is an area of very great interest for theologians at the moment as they
move on from cosmology. Evolutionary biology is a key part of this.
> 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".
Ted Peters is at the Pacific Lutheran seminary, Mark Worthing is at Luther College.
Most are interested and write on the broader science-theology issues. While you are
at it, you should consider reading some of Wolfhart Pannenberg as well. The pope
not a theologian? Shhh.... don't tell the catholics.....
> 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.
Gillian is the recently retired director of Kew Gardens and a major researcher on
botany and plant ecology, especially of tropical forests. He and his time at Kew was
well written up in the journal Nature a few weeks back. Sam Berry is quite open
about his Christian commitment in scientific circles. What do you mean him making
any case for TE/EC? His position is quite properly a theological one, an therefore
not one that is necessary in his exclusively scientific publications.
Why do you say that Ayala is no longer a theist? Perhaps I have been misinformed or
have misread his work.
> 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.
Robert Russell is at CTNS Berkeley and an important thinker on science, theology and
the nature of divine action. He is both scientist and theologian. I agree that
Peacocke has some unorthodox views (which I most certainly do not share), however he
has much of interest and value to say. Also he is not a deist, but rather a
panentheist. I am surprised that you rule Polkinghorne as someone with little to
contribute. He may be only a physicist, but he is also well qualified theologically
and has thought deeply about questions of divine action and the science-theology
interface. I notice you accept Steven Weinberg's opinion as authoritative in this
area, even though he too is only a physicist and, unlike Polkinghorne, not only
lacks theological or philosophical training, but is also not a Christian. Is this
consistent?
> 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.
Exactly what are you asking for here? TE/EC is a theological issue and therefore
well argued by these people in the appropriate journals. It is not necessary as part
of their scientific reporting. Should I write about "theistic ore genesis" in a
paper about gold deposits, or a cosmologist one "theistic stellar evolution"?
> 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:
What is your point here? Of course "evolution" meant something different in the
early 19th and 20th century. So did just about every science you could mention.
That is not the issue. What TEs are merely trying to say that there were serious
and generally successful attempts to explore and perhaps integrate theology and
evolutionary biology. There were as many different angles on this as people who
tried. People who continue to do so today are their intellectual descendants and
inheritors, even if they way they go about it and even the issues are changed since
then.
> "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)
Since when has Provine become such an authority on the history and philosophy of
science-theology interaction that Johnson relies on him and ignores people such as
Moore (who wrote "The post-darwinian controversies") or Livingstone who paint a very
different picture?
> 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.
Spoken to him recently have you (grin)? Seriously, we must be very careful in
saying that deceased people, were they alive to day, would have opinions congruent
with what we would like them to have.
> 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!
Again, you are speaking for the dead. However I note that you have quoted
extensively from Livingstone's book. In doing so you should note what the book
actually says overall. Livingstone writes on page xii of his preface that his aim
is "....to show that a substantial number of the most distinguished members of
evangelical orthodoxy found the theological resources to adsorb the latest
scientific findings". He think he demonstrates this quite well. You are of course
welcome to disagree.
> 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*.
I agree that TE/EC is a minority view among both scientists and Christians,
probably because a minority of scientists are Christians and a minority of
Christians are scientists. This is not the same thing as saying that it is
marginalised. You have shown no evidence for that I fear.
> 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!
>
What basis do you have for such triumphalism? While the ID movement has some good
ideas I suspect that they looking for design at the wrong level. So far they have
come up with little more than Paley.
However, I not not want to close on such a note. I would like to see the discussion
move forward. I am not interested in long quotes from various authors, not even
Philip Johnson. Nor am I interested in a battle of quotes. What I am interested in
is your understanding. So let me ask some questions.
1) How do you see the nature of divine action in the world? Is is possible for God
to work seamlessly within and through His world as it's creator and sustainer, or
must he intervene within it?
2) Do you believe that science and Christian theism theology share common
metaphysical assumption about the nature of the world?
3) What is the nature of your hostility to organic evolution? Is it to the general
meaning of the idea (common descent with modification) or just to particular
expressions of it (such as neodarwinian models)?
4) Do you believe that organic evolution is, in principle, congruent with Christian
theology, or fundamentally incompatible?
I am sure you have probably answered these questions many times already, but you
emails are so prolific I hope you will be patient with me asking them again. As a
last appeal, for the sake of those reading these discussions, can we both try to
keep them shorter rather than longer? I am embarrassed by the length of this one!
God Bless
Jonathan