I should back off a bit & provide briefly some context for my remarks. They are
given withour supporting argumentation. I give a few references to my work for further
details.
Who God is can be known only through God's self-revelation which is centered on
the cross of Christ. The understanding of divine action most consistent with the
character of God so revealed is kenotic: God limits his action in the world to what can
be accomplished through natural processes, so that the world can be understood in terms
of those processes without reference to God. This has several consequences, among them:
1) Creation possesses "functional integrity" (Van Till).
2) Scientific theories (including natural selection) are not to be derived from
theology. In particular, methodological naturalism is the appropriate way
to do science.
#1 is an expression of grace at the very beginning, for it means, among other things,
that we can understand the world, know consequences of our actions, &c. #2 is simply
the reverse side of the fact that we don't learn about God from science apart from
revelation.
OTOH, science and theology can be mutually illuminating when scientific
understanding of the world are placed in the context of revelation. E.g., a critical
reading of scripture, the witness to revelation, itself does not speak directly about
biological evolution. But the fact that the object of God's reconciling action in the
cross is "all things" (Col.1:20), together with the principle "what has not been assumed
has not been healed", is best understood if there is an organic relationship between
humanity & other living things, a relationship which was assumed in the Incarnation.
While natural selection is inconsistent with traditional pictures of God, it is
not surprising if God is known as the one who creates life out of death and who
participates in dying himself. This argument is strengthened when one realizes that the
major theoretical competitor of natural selection has always been some variety of
"transmission of acquired characters" which means that in a sense species "earn" their
survival and further development, a kind of "biological works righteousness." (& in
fact the way "natural selection" has often been understood, including some comments in
this exchange, has really been more like Lamarckianism.)
A few references are:
_The Trademark_ of God (Morehouse-Barlow, Wilton, CT, 1986)
"A Theological Argument for Evolution" (Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation
38, 19, 1986)
"Chiasmic Cosmology: A Response to Fred Van Dyke" (Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation 38, 124, 1986)
"The Paradox of Mediated Creation Ex Nihilo" (Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith 39, 221, 1987)
"Chiasmic Cosmology: An Approach to the Science-Theology Dialogue" (Trinity Seminary
Review 13, 83, 1991)
"The Science-Theology Dialogue and Theological Ambiguity" (Currents in Theology and
Mission 21, 246, 1994)
"`Chiasmic Cosmology' and `The Same Old Story': Two Lutheran Approaches to Natural
Theology" in _Facets of Faith & Science_, Volume 4, edited by Jitse M. van der
Meer (University Press of America, Lanham MD, 1996), pp.131-142.
Bryan R. Cross wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote: ..............................
> > Your analysis would be correct if natural selection were a matter of individuals
> > trying to "merit" survival by defeating enemies. In fact it's a matter of populations
> > being "selected" (note quotes) by environments, including unforseeable environmental
> > catastrophes. Gould has done a good job of emphasizing this.
>
> Whether it is individuals or populations, natural selection is not grace-based. Who survives? The
> strong. Of course the environment selects, but it doesn't select willy nilly; it selects the strong.
> Divine grace, however, historically selected the weak, the foolish, the undeserving, etc. This point
> is so obvious that it needs no defending.
As I pointed out above, the functional integrity of creation is itself an
expression of grace. You again fall into the error of identifying natural selection
with a crude triumph of "the strong". It isn't. Mammals didn't survive the Chixlub
impact instead of the dinosuars because they were "stronger" - or for that matter
"smarter", more moral &c than dinosaurs. They were just luckier. In general, natural
selection doesn't select those who "deserve" to survive.
About the only thing you say in this paragraph that's correct is that God
selects the undeserving. God's election is because God chooses to elect - not _because_
someone is poor like Mary or rich like Abraham. & no one could have looked at the earth
80 million years ago and forseen that the ratty little mammals trying to keep from being
stepped on by dinosaurs were in some sense "the elect". Dt.7:7-8 might be noted here,
mutatis mutandis.
> > Theologically, the significant thing about the evolutionary process is that life
> > develops out of conditions of privation, competition, & death - which of course is not
> > the way the conventional beneficent God of philosophical theism is supposed to work, &
> > why the process creates theodicy dilemmas for such theism. It is, however, coherent
> > with the character of the biblical God who creates life out of death (Exodus, exile &
> > return, justification of the ungodly), all centered on new creation out of God's own
> > participation in death. OTOH this is not a matter of God or believers simply being the
> > "fittest" who "survive" because God Incarnate gets killed along with the "losers" in the
> > process & is risen.
>
> With that last statement you show that there is no essential relation between mutation/natural
> selection and God's modus operandi viz-a-viz salvation history. With evolution the weak die and the
> strong survive; in redemptive history, the weak suffer and then the strong are brought down and the
> weak eventually triumph with divine aid. I never claimed that natural selection is not coherent with
> the character of the biblical God (nor did I claim that it is coherent). My point was that God's
> character as described in the Bible does not *support* His forming life by natural selection. That
> is because the character of God as described in the Bible is just as consistent with many other ways
> of creating, including de novo creation. (That is plain just from the fact that *something* had to
> be created de novo; therefore His character cannot be incompatible with de novo creation per se.)
> Therefore, the claim that the Bible presents a picture of God's character that *supports* evolution
> by natural selection is ludicrous. "Compatible with" means "supportive of" only if no other creation
> options are "compatible with" the character of God as presented in Scripture. Since many other
> creation-methods are compatible with the character of God as presented in Scripture, therefore the
> character of God as presented in Scripture does not *support* evolution by natural selection.
I note that you ignore the main thrust of the argument.
You're using "support" as if it meant logical implication. Of course it
doesn't. The fact that planetary motion obeys Kepler's laws to a good approximation is
supportive of Newton's, Einstein's, & a number of other gravitational theories. I have
never said that a denial of natural selection, or for that matter of biological
evolution, is heretical. I will say that with we know today (at least if we've awakened
from our dogmatic slumbers) about both scripture and natural science makes it very
doubtful that one can construct a coherent Christian theology which takes the real world
seriously if it doesn't include some form of macroevolution in which natural selection
plays a significant role.
> > The fact that natural selection is a major factor in evolution doesn't mean that
> > that's where we're to get our ethics. This is just one more example of the toxic
> > effects of independent natural theology.
>
> Just for the record, I did not claim that we are to get our ethics from natural selection.
No, but when you said (correctly) "The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount
extol the anti-Darwinian moral character, "blessed are the meek, turn the other cheek,
give to him who asks", etc. It is quite safe to say that Christianity is completely
antithetically to social Darwinism", the context suggested that those who accepted
natural selection as a biological mechanism should get their ethics from it.
> > > > > > I suggest that just as God, who began the process of natural history,
> > > > > > occasionally intervened in it for the higher purpose of salvation as
> > > > > > recorded in Scripture, so he will occasionally make exceptions to the
> > > > > > natural laws and processes he has instituted. The exceptions justify the
> > > > > > rule, and both the rule and the exceptions glorify the Ruler.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of the miracles of salvation history, & especially those of the NT, serve
> > > > > to point to Jesus as the presence of the God who works all the time through natural
> > > > > processes in nature - cf. the use of "sign" (semeion) to describe them & C.S. Lewis's
> > > > > emphasis in _Miracles_. What would be the corresponding sign value of, e.g., miraculous
> > > > > intervention to create life (something which, in addition, the Bible gives us no reason
> > > > > to posit)?
> > >
> > > Its amazing how God is hamstrung by a priori theology. The claim is that he can't
> > > supernaturally intervene in nature unless it is part of redemptive history and thereby points
> > > to Christ. How do you know that God's only supernatural direct action was in redemptive
> > > history? Just because it would seem useless to you? Just because the only supernatural direct
> > > actions you are aware of are recorded in redemptive history? Those are poor reasons, and they
> > > just beg the question. Furthermore, if each of the miracles in the OT point to Christ, then
> > > why assume that any miracle that wasn't explicitly written down in special revelation does not
> > > point to Christ?
>
> > First, someone who has previously affirmed belief in divine immutability is not
> > in a good position to criticize anyone else for a priori theology.
>
> That claim is not necessarily true, for it would be true only if the person in question arrived at
> his belief in divine immutability by way of a priori theology. Since you did not ask me how I
> arrived at my belief in divine immutability, you are not in a position to make this judgment.
You are free to describe how you arrived at that belief if you wish. In any
case it's inconsistent with the belief that God experienced suffering & death on the
cross, & therefore with the revealed character of God. Thus it is something brought to,
rather than gotten from, revelation. (Yes, I know the 2 verses, & no, they don't trump
the cross.)
> > Second, I never said or will say that miracles can occur only in salvation
> > history. The whole separation of a separate realm of phenomena in the world as
> > "history", & of a separate realm of history as "salvation history" seems questionable to
> > me. What I pointed out is that the nature miracles in the NT function, _inter alia_, as
> > signs to point out the presence of the creator who operates all the time in the world
> > through natural processes, & that a miraculous creation of life in general would not
> > play that role. That doesn't prove that it couldn't have happened
>
> > Third, I didn't simply say that the NT miracles "point to Christ" but that they
>
> > "point to Jesus as the presence of the God who works all the time through natural
> > processes in nature." The difference is non-trivial.
>
> But you started your sentence with "Many of the miracles of salvation history, & especially those of
> the NT", implying that at least some of these were OT miracles. If any OT miracles point to Jesus,
> then why not all OT miracles? You asked the question, "What would be the corresponding sign value
> of, e.g., miraculous intervention to create life . . . ?" By asking this question you seem to admit
> that miracles in redemptive history have sign value, while miracles outside of redemptive history
> would not. But just above you rejected the notion of a separate realm of "salvation history", so it
> seems that you have no principle reason to deny sign value to any miracle. The sign value of the
> miraculous intervention to create life (should it have occurred that) would be the same as that of
> any comparable OT miracle, or NT miracle for that matter.
You continue to miss the point. The NT takes for granted that the God of Israel
gives food to all people (e.g., Ps.145:15-16): It is a matter of faith, not of
observation. The gospel writers see the feeding of the 5000 as a sign which "point[s]
to Jesus as the presence of the God who works all the time through natural processes in
nature." What would the comparable sign value of a miraculous creation of life in the
beinning be? That the God who creates life in the beginning is the God who creates?
Miracles aren't needed to establish tautologies.
> > Finally, there is no reason at all on the basis of special revelation to think
> > that the origin of life took place in a way which cannot be understood in terms of
> > natural processes. As I have pointed out repeatedly, Genesis 1 points in just the
> > opposite direction.
> This is an argument from silence, for one can just as easily say that there is no reason at all on
> the basis of special revelation to think that the origin of life took place in a way which cannot be
> understood in terms of supernatural processes. With respect to Genesis 1, the Bible does not say
> "this event occurred within the bounds of natural laws" or "this event exceeded the limits of
> natural laws". As long as the Biblical evidence can be used to support equally either of two
> contrary opinions, it supports neither. Whether one interprets the events of Genesis 1 as miracles
> or not will depend upon what one believes about what can and cannot occur by natural processes.
> Since in this regard the interpretation depends upon what scientific evidence the exegete brings to
> the text, the text itself does not answer the question. We should not attempt to substantiate a
> claim with an appeal to special revelation when special revelation provides no support for that
> claim, or is equally compatible with the claim and its contrary.
It doesn't take a very strong version of methodological naturalism to say that
one ought to look for natural explanations for phenomena for which there is no
indication from revelation that they were beyond the capabilities of nature.
Of course Genesis 1 doesn't say "this event occurred within the bounds of
natural laws." It says "let the earth bring forth" & "let the waters bring forth", & it
doesn't require modern science to see the implications. Ephrem of Edessa, Gregory of
Nyssa, Augustine, & others of the fathers saw them.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 21:33:56 EDT