I apologize for all the line breaks in previous post. Here is a better
version (hopefully).
- Bryan
SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/18/00 12:50:20 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> crossbr@SLU.EDU writes:
>
> > Mechanism, mechanism, mechanism. That is the issue. Most Christians
do not
> > deny that humans were formed by
> > the dust of the earth; the debate involves the mechanism: by what
means
> did
> > fashion humans from dust? (By
> > macroevolution or directly? With direct divine action or without
it? etc.
> > and every position in between.)
>
> Since Bryan is quoting John Wiester's "mechanism, mechanism,
mechanism", we
> should probably stop and be sure he is not assigning Wiester's (and
Dawkins'
> and I would claim Johnson's) God-excluding meaning to certain
mechanisms.
Actually, I wasn't quoting Wiester (I'm not even sure who he is,
although the name is familiar); if Wiester said the same thing, then my
use of the same phrase was just a coincidence, or else the expression of
something previously read and long-hidden in my subconscious. So, to
answer your question, I was not saying or implying whatever Wiester
meant by the expression. I said that the mechanism is the issue,
meaning, *the issue in question*. I was responding to George's claim
that (paraphrase) certain passages in Genesis 1 imply the truth of
macroevolution. My response was that the passages in Genesis 1 do not
tell us the mechanism; they tell us *that* God made the various life
forms, and they imply that there is some kind of [unspecified] role
played by second causes. From an exegetical perspective it is certainly
possible that these verses give us a phenomenological/descriptive
account, not a [efficient] causal account, with respect to the role of
the earth, the water, etc. In other words, careful exegesis of these
passages does not tell us whether the formation of life occurred solely
by second causes or not solely by second causes. If certain church
fathers thought these passages did contain this information, then I must
respectfully disagree with them. By the expression "by what mechanism?"
I mean only "by what means?" Since Scripture does not answer that
question, the question, if it can be answered at all, must be answered
by science.
In my view, the large-scale debate over these issues often confuses
the theological questions and the scientific questions. "Did God create
life" is clearly a theological question, and special revelation provides
a clear answer. On the other hand, "by what means did God create life?"
is a theological question that (as I've argued above) is largely
unanswered by special revelation. Therefore, it becomes the task of the
believing scientist to try to piece together how God did it. If
scientists find that natural causes are capable of completely explaining
the molecule-to-man process and that the evidence points to
that scenario, then that is a good reason to believe that God did it
that way. If scientists find that natural causes are not capable of
completely explaining the molecule-to-man process then there is good
reason to believe that some direct divine action was involved. The
bottom line is that special revelation does not solve the mechanism
question; that question must be answered by science, (if it can be
answered at all.)
> I think that in our recent discussions Bryan has agreed that
"mechanism" is
> not *the issue* in the sense that the viability of Christianity does
not
> depend on the truth or falsity of a particular mechanism. And that if
one
> affirms the Biblical doctrine of Providence and God's sovereignty over
> nature, "natural" mechanisms for God's creative work should be no
danger to
> Biblical faith. [I would add that those who incorrectly see natural
> mechanisms as eliminating God have an unbiblical "God-of-the-Gaps"
theology.]
Agreed.
> Having established that mechanism is not a *vital* theological issue,
is it
> an issue at all?
I think it is, in part because theology isn't everything. In my view,
there are many genuine non-theological issues. I think that the question
of the means God used to create all living organism is a very important
and interesting issue, even though it cannot be answered by special
revelation, and has no major theological implications.
> I think that is where what George has been saying comes in.
My understanding of what George was saying was not just that special
revelation is *compatible* with the truth macroevolution, but that
special revelation *implies* or *supports* the truth of macroevolution.
That was the matter over which he and I disagreed.
> As we discover the mechanisms by which God did things, we can perhaps
get a
> glimpse of the character of God. That character will not always fit
our
> human presuppositions, and if insights from nature challenge us to
reexamine
> some of those presuppositions, it can be an opportunity for growth.
If our
> presuppositions about how we think God had to create (for example,
thinking
> that he must leave "fingerprints all over the evidence", or for that
matter
> thinking that God must never act "directly") keep us from that growth
> opportunity, it is our loss, and the church's.
I wholeheartedly agree. This position allows our scientific discoveries
to inform our theology, and our theology to help interpret our
scientific discoveries.
best,
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 19 2000 - 02:28:56 EDT