From: Chuck Austerberry (cfauster@creighton.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 18:20:56 EST
Dear Howard
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You ask:
>Is it the case that mutational randomness is under attack by Caporale? Or is
>she instead pointing to the need to see how the line that successfully
>multiplies depends on the entire genome being explored in genetic
>phase-space, and not merely on some single adaptive factor? It's the latter
>that makes more sense to me at the moment.
I don't know. The publisher's synopsis of the book suggests that Caporale would be more sympathetic to your position than to ID, and even ISCID's announcement of the web chat acknowledges that Caporale does not invoke an external designer. But, the announcement also says: "Caporale offers an exciting new theory that sees past . . . a purely random model of evolution . . . Simply put: Not all mutations are random accidents."
To me the issue is not whether mutations are random. The real issue is whether they are completely accidental, and that is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
As you know, neo-Darwinism's description of mutations as random is ID's main complaint (some in the ID movement are comfortable with both common descent and natural selection). I agree with you, Kenneth Miller, Robert Russell, and others who feel that scientific discoveries since Darwin and Asa Gray have suggested how and why random mutation might be consistent with divine action.
I also agree that pre-scientific Biblical theology is consistent with God working through chance. That was established long before Laplacian determinism seemed to some people to take the "creation through chance" option away from God, let alone before quantum and chaotic indeterminism seemed to give it back.
Still, creation through random chance remains a difficult concept for me. Maybe I'm in good company. In "Kenotic Creation and Divine Action" (in the book _The Work of Love: Creation and Kenosis_, 2001, Eerdmans), Polkinghorne admits that "The scientist-theologian is in a Catch-22 situation. The more explicit the talk is about the causal joint by which God acts in the world, the greater the possibility that special providence becomes just one form of causality among other causes. Yet without some such attempt at explication, special providence is at risk of remaining too mysterious for any discussion beyond fideistic assertion." Three years ago on this list Steve Petermann had an interesting dialogue with Dave Siemens, George Murphy, and others on the issue. On May 8 2000 Steve wrote to Dave:
"So if I can summarize the difference of your position from that of a deist,
in a deist position God establishes the universe but is no longer involved
*at all*. In your position God establishes the universe, maintains his
creation (maintains existence) but is passive beyond the established
regularities he set up. So from a practical standpoint there is really no
difference between this position and a materialist position except
that the workings of the universe are attributed to God. Concurrence just
allows these regularities and their results to be attributed to God but we
really still have a material deterministic system at least with the
probabilities of physics. We are stuck with "dumb" natural processes and any
teleology will be necessarily weak (an entropic dance) and just a matter of
chance. Is this a fair summary?"
Both Dave and George then characterized their positions as going farther beyond deism than is implied by the above passage. I know that you have also contrasted your views with deism on many occasions, Howard.
Steve then mentioned Polkinghorne's idea of special/extraordinary providence occurring within the openness of nature, through chaotic indeterminism according to Polkinghorne (and through quantum indeterminism for others). George seemed to classify such particular yet natural divine action under general/ordinary providence instead of special/extraordinary providence. In any case, George seemed to share Polkinghorne's view that such action would not be detectable scientifically, so the phenomena would still be seen as random.
One more thing. Also in "Kenotic Creation and Divine Action" Polkinghorne writes "I have come to believe that the Creator's kenotic love includes allowing divine special providence to act as a cause among causes," i.e. not only via pure information input without energy transfer but also via a combination of energetic and informational causalities. Has this brought him closer to the ID position of empirically detectable design?
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments (and thanks to anyone else who cares to join in).
Yours in Christ,
Chuck Austerberry
P.S. - Howard, I like your chapter in Keith Miller's new book "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" just published by Eerdmans. Lots of good chapters in there.
-- Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biology Hixson-Lied Science Building Room 438 Creighton University 2500 California Plaza Omaha, NE 68178Voice: (402)-280-2154 FAX: (402)-280-5595 e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu web: http://puffin.creighton.edu/Austerberry
Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education http://nrcse.creighton.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:22:45 EST