On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:36:25 +1000, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
[...]
JC>Thanks for your thought provoking response.
I thank Jonathan for his polite response. This is a refreshing change from
the usual varying degrees of intimidation, denigration and abuse that I am
accustomed to at the hands of TE/ECs on this Reflector!
JC>I am sorry that my reply has been so tardy. !
That's OK. Personally I think the emphasis on speed, at the expense of
quality, bedevils this listserv.
Nevertheless, this is such a long post, that I will break it into several
chunks and answer it progressively over several days. To avoid total confusion,
I will avoid answering replies to earlier parts until I have finished the
original post.
JC>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.
That Berry has been "well received among Christians, the media, and
researchers" in a single visit does not mean that his TE *position* is still
not marginalised among both mainstream Christianity and science. Berry
has been a leading TE for decades and yet AFAIK he has had very little
impact on Christian thought. I would doubt that the majority Christians had
ever heard of him. And I would expect that even less scientists had ever
heard of his TE views.
Yesterday I checked Amazon.com to see how Berry's books are selling,
and they do not list *any, despite their claim to have over 2.5 million titles
in their catalog! More on that in the next installment.
[...]
>>JC>...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>...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:
JC>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.
I find this significant that TEs don't even like the term Theistic Evolution"!
Van Till is the same:
"In connection with this, I would like to stress that I am not advocating
what some have called `theistic evolution.' In fact, the term theistic
evolution strikes me as a prime example of the `methods employed'
language. The natural process is given primary status by its appearance in
the form of the noun evolution; divine action appears to be relegated to a
secondary status by its confinement to the adjective theistic. `Theistic
evolutionism,' therefore, is not an appropriate label for the position that I
am advocating." (Van Till H.J., "The Fourth Day", 1986, p265)
This suggests to me that, deep down, TEs are uncomfortable with
their own position.
TEs are hardly likely to improve their already marginalised position
in either Christianity or science, if they don't even like the term
"theistic evolution". Of course the TE/EC leaders can deny that TE
is their own position, but then they leave their followers adrift.
If TEs don't like the term "theistic evolution" then why don't they
endeavour to come up with a term that they *do* like?
This failure to clearly articulate and agree on a position, is probably
a major reason why TE/EC is so marginalised.
JC>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).
That TEs might *like* to "see their position as quite different from that of
DE" does not mean that it *is* different from DE. If some TEs fit the
description of DE, then IMHO they *are* DEs, whether they like it or not!
JC>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.
I do not necessarily regard DEs as deists or advocating deism.
Classical Deists were non-Christian unbelievers who denied *any*
supernatural intervention by God in the world, including
supernatural revelation (ie. the Bible) and the Biblical miracles:
"Deism, from deus, although etymologically synonymous with theism,
from theos, has been distinguished from it since the middle of the
sixteenth century, and designates a system admitting the existence of a
personal Creator, but denying his controlling presence in the world, his
immediate moral government, and all supernatural intervention and
revelation." (Hodge A.A., "Outlines of Theology", 1983, reprint, p48)
Deistic evolutionists who are Christians, OTOH, while they would
deny restrict supernatural intervention in natural history, would not
deny supernatural revelation and intervention in salvation history.
For example, Michael Corey, who has written a book entitled, "Back
to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution", is a *Christian*
Deistic Evolutionist.
So, when I use the term DE, I am (unless otherwise indicated) referring
to those *Christians* who deny supernatural intervention in natural
history. That would include Van Till and others who espouse doctrines
like "functional integrity" and "gapless economy" to support this
denial of supernatural intervention in natural history.
But the term DE would not include those TEs who do not go so far as
Van Till in denying apriori the possibility of God's supernatural
intervention in natural history.
JC>A theist would
>always regard God as having some form sovereignty over events.
Agreed, but this is too vague. What *exactly* does "having some form
sovereignty over events" mean to a TE/EC? A DE could argue that setting
up the laws and boundary conditions of the universe in advance to produce
life, plants, animals and man is "having some form sovereignty over
events".
In my experience TE/ECs are impenetrably vague on this crucial point. I
hope Jonathan bites the bullet and spells out in greater detail what he
means by "God...having some form sovereignty over events".
JC>Secondly, theists because of this recognise the major role of divine
>providence in the world, which deists deny. ".
See above. We are not talking about non-Christian "deists" but about
*Christian* deistic evolutionists!
JC>Thirdly, deists deny revelation and that that implies.
See above. By DE I mean *Christian* DEs!
SJ>"Deistic Evolution...is perhaps the best way to describe one variety of
>>what is generally called theistic evolution... 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.
Yes it can. See above.
>>SJ>... "TE/EC" *is* "marginalised in...mainstream "science". ...
>>TE/ECs ...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:
JC>AFAIK is a new one on me - does it mean "As far as I know?"
Yes. There are various lists of Internet acronyms, on the 'Net, e.g.
http://www.net-mag.com/1-2/acronyms.htm.
Other common acronyms I can remember seeing on the Reflector include:
OTOH on the other hand
IMHO in my humble opinion
BTW by the way
ROTFL rolls on the floor, laughing
JC>"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?
TE/ECs make this point often. It is meant to place creationists on the horns
of a dilemma. If the creationist answers "yes" he is treated to ridicule for
claiming that there is a distinctively Christian way to `bake a cake'"? But if
he answers "no" then he is told, "well why do you demand "a distinctively
Christian way to `study the created world?'"
This seems to me to be an example of the Complex Question fallacy:
"Complex Question. "When did you stop beating your wife?" That is a
perfect example of asking a complex question. It isn't really one question; it
is two. If only one response is given, no matter which question it answers,
the other question has an implied answer that may not be true. The debater
here is saying, reaccept this (false) implication because of this other (true)
implication." It assumes a simple yes-or-no answer to a complex yes-and-
no question. In this respect it is the opposite of a reductive fallacy because
it unnecessarily complicates the question. Besides that, at least one of the
questions is based on a false assumption. It is the false assumption that
usually sticks in the listeners' minds and wins them over to the false
proposition." (Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason: An
Introduction to Logical Thinking", 1990, p108)
JC>My understanding, from reading Foster, Jaki, and Hooykaas
I know of the last two, but who is "Foster"?
JC>is that the scientific approach is based on a world view that is
>essentially Christian.
This was true once, but not any longer. Today the "scientific approach is
based on a world view that is" materialistic-naturalistic. which is
"essentially" anti-"Christian"!
JC>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.
Inasmuch as science involves human individuals:
"But briefly, what Kuhn did was to advance the idea that the involvement
of things beyond merely the empirical is both inevitable and legitimate in
science. We humans cannot even in principle avoid having various of our
broad metaphysical and value convictions play some role in our science.
Our senses and our reason are not simply detachable from deeper streams
that flow within us, so we cannot construct a "pure" science employing
only those detached faculties. This at least suggests the possibility that even
political themes, religious themes or other things that deeply shape our
being might have some inescapable perhaps even legitimate role to play in
our science and scientific theorizing." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
Beginnings", 1996, p119);
and the Bible says that "The fear [ie. reverence] of the LORD is the
beginning of wisdom" (Ps 111:10); and commands that all men are to love
God with all their mind (Mt 22:37); and that *every* thought is to be made
obedient to Christ (2Cor 10:5); I would claim that not only that "there can
be a specifically `Christian' science" but that *in principle* "a specifically
`Christian' science" is the *only* true science. That is, if every scientist was
a Christian, then science would be truer and better.
JC>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".
See above. But the question before us is not whether there is a a "theistic
plate tectonics" or a "theistic gravity" but whether there is a "theistic
*evolution*"?
JC>My understanding of theism (as opposed to deism or semi deism) does not presuppose
any >particular mode of divine action...
OK. Would that "any particular mode of divine action" include supernatural
guidance and/or intervention in natural history?
JC>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.
Since modern materialistic-naturalistic "science" rules out apriori that there
is a Creator who supernaturally guided and/or intervened at strategic points
in natural history:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense
is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the
supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of
some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and
institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door...To appeal to all omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the
regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
(Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons," review of "The Demon-
Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New
York Review, January 9, 1997, p31);
how would such a materialistic-naturalistic "science...discover...the way in
which God works" if God did in fact work by supernaturally guiding and/or
intervening intervened at strategic points in natural history?
JC>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.
See my messages to Howard. This term is IMHO pejorative. If God
intervenes in the world, He has already planned nature to accommodate
it seamlessly, as C.S. Lewis pointed out:
"It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks
the laws of Nature. It doesn't. If I knock out my pipe I alter the
position of a great many atoms: in the long run, and to an infinitesimal
degree, of all the atoms there are. Nature digests or assimilates this
event with perfect ease and harmonises it in a twinkling with all other
events. It is one more bit of raw material for the laws to apply to and
they apply. I have simply thrown one event into the general cataract of
events and it finds itself at home there and conforms to all other events.
If God annihilates or creates or deflects a unit of matter He has created
a new situation at that point. Immediately all Nature domiciles this new
situation, makes it at home in her realm, adapts all other events to it. It
finds itself conforming to all the laws. If God creates a miraculous
spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any
laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy
follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child
is born. We see every day that physical nature is not in the least
incommoded by the daily inrush of events from biological nature or
from psychological nature. If events ever come from beyond Nature
altogether, she will be no more incommoded by them. Be sure she will
rush to the point where she is invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a
cut in our finger, and there hasten to accommodate the newcomer. The
moment it enters her realm it obeys all her laws. Miraculous wine will
intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired
books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual corruption,
miraculous bread win be digested. The divine art of miracle is not an
art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding
new events into that pattern. It does not violate the law's proviso, "If
A, then B ": it says, " But this time instead of A, A2," and Nature,
speaking through all her laws, replies, "Then B2" and naturalises the
immigrant, as she well knows how. She is an accomplished hostess."
(Lewis C.S., "Miracles", 1963, pp63-64).
JC>Such events are not amenable to science
Disagree. Science can handle singularities like the Big Bang, so
there is no reason in principle why science cannot study supernatural
interventions by God, at least from the point where such interventions
enter the natural world.
JC>and the history of
>life must have witnessed at least several such events.
Is Jonathan here saying that believes that God *has* intervened in the
world, apart from the Biblical miracles?
JC>However in this conversation
>we seem to be stuck with the term, so I will continue to use it.
If Jonathan continues to use terms like "irruptive" for God's
intervention into his own world, then I will continue to argue that it
is pejorative and inappropriate!
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our hypothetical nucleic acid synthesis system is therefore analogous to
the scaffolding used in the construction of a building. After the building has
been erected the scaffolding is removed, leaving no physical evidence that
it was ever there. *Most of the statements in this section must therefore be
taken as educated guesses.* Without having witnessed the event, it seems
unlikely that we shall ever be certain of how life arose" (Voet D. & Voet
J.G., "Biochemistry", John Wiley and Sons: New York NY, 1995, p23, in
Ashton J.F., ed., "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in
Creation", New Holland: Sydney NSW, Australia, 1999, p165. (emphasis
in original).
--------------------------------------------------------------------