On Mon, 07 Aug 1995 13:46:50 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>ABSTRACT: I answer Stephen's question about "how exactly God was
involved with the world in Theistic Evolution."
Part #3
[...]
lh>GOD'S USE OF SUPERNATURAL ACTIONS.
>One view is that God probably performed a number of supernatural acts
>(either "quickly," or slowly through an accumulation of "small" events)
>to guide biological evolution down the particular path it took;
>however, we won't be able to tell from the fossil or genetic record
>which _particular_ events or transitions were supernatural in nature.
I disagree. If no known 100% naturalistic mechanism can account for
the rapidity and direction of the changes documented in the fossil
record, then it seems a valid scientific inference that Intelligent
Design was involved.
Only if "scientific" is arbitrarily defined to exclude apriori the
very existence of Intelligent Design in the question of origins,
is the above inference ruled out.
LH>Another view is that God probably worked entirely non-
supernaturally -- through pre-planning, natural law, and "chance"
events -- in biological history.
This is possible, but again its weakness is if there is no 100%
naturalistic mechanisms that can account for the origin of life and
life's new designs, particularly the speed and direction documented
in the fossil record.
LH>Of course, one can take an intermediate or modified version of the
>views presented above, and they are not completely independent of
>each other.
I wonder if one can take a "modified version" of the above. For
example, if TE claims all development of the living world is the
result of 100% natural causes, but makes an exception in the case of
(say) the origin of life and the origin of man, is that no longer
TE, but a minimalist version of PC?
LH>If you take an extreme form of the second view in each of these
>four categories, you have something very close to (perhaps
>unacceptably close to) deism.
This is my problem with TE, and some of the analogies (eg. Glenn's
wave-maker machine) used to illustrate it. IMHO these are not the
overall picture one gets of God through reading the Bible. The God
of the Bible is a God of order and regularity, but who also
intervenes at strategic points to create something new out of the
existing.
LH>If you strongly favor the first view in these categories
>(especially regarding "chance" events and supernatural actions), you
>have something which overlaps with Progressive Creation. I'm not
>going to argue here for any one view (or synthesis of views) in any
>of these categories. I'm not going to say what I specifically
>believe because I haven't fully decided yet (:-) and I want to be
>inclusive of others who advocate T.E.
There is some overlap of TE and PC (eg. both agree that God is behind
all natural law, etc). But none of the above is PC.
LH>What unites these various views of Theistic Evolution -- and
>separates them from Progressive Creation -- is the (tentative)
>belief, based on the theological and scientific data, that it was not
>NECESSARY for God to perform supernatural miracles in order for a
>biologically interesting ecosystem to arise; that the possibilities
>for abiogenesis, the increasing complexity of biological forms, and
>the appearance of higher taxa are inherent in the natural laws and
>stocastic processes of chemistry and biology; that if and when
>evolutionary biology reaches an empirical level similar to
>present-day physics, macroevolution in terms of the regular and
>continuous operation of natural mechanisms will seem as plausible and
>understandable as stellar evolution does today.
This is a fair statement of the differences between TE and PC.
However, the assumption that it was not "necessary for God to perform
supernatural miracles" is not demonstrable. Science would presumably
have to have 100% knowledge of all natural processes before it could
assert that. IMHO it is a very open question whether a Creator has
intervened in some way in the origin and development of the living
world.
The analogy between "stellar evolution" and biological evolution is
not as apt as it might seem because: 1) of the enormous degree of
complexity of the latter compared with the former (arguably the
simplest living thing, eg. a bacterium, is more complex than the
most complex non-living thing, eg. a galaxy?), and 2) there is no
Biblical conflict with stellar evolution because from Genesis 1:2
the focus in creation is what happens here on Earth, and particularly
in the living world.
[continued]
Once again, thank you for your friendly and stimulating discussions,
Loren! :-)
God bless.
Stephen