Stephen
Thanks for your thoughtful, pleasant, and detailed response(s) to my
"Theistic Evolution covers a range of opinions on these four issues:"
post.
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN NATURAL LAW.
SJ> I see a distinction between laws
> and events. God ensured the natural laws of mechanics operated that
> enabled Eve's arm to reach out and take the forbidden fruit, but the
> event was caused primarily by Eve's will.
This is a very good distinction. This is why theologians distinguish
between different types of God's Will (e.g. acquiescence, governance, and
good pleasure).
SJ> There is a qualitative distinction between
> natural and supernatural events. God may be involved indirectly in
> natural events but directly in supernatural events. A natural event
> is not proof of God working directly, but a supernatural event is.
Another good distinction.
----------------------------------------------
GOD'S INVOLVEMENT IN "CHANCE" EVENTS.
LH> One view is that God proscriptively determines the outcome of every
> "chance" event....
> Another view is that God designed chance events
> and stochastic processes as part of creation (a consequence of the
> natural laws) to grant a degree of flexibility and freedom to his
> creation.
SJ> Perhaps in a sense both are true? Scripture indicates that God set
> boundaries within which His creation can operate.
Yes, I believe it is possible that, seen from different perspectives, both
can be true.
----------------------
THE LEVEL OF GOD'S FORESIGHT AND PRE-PLANNING.
LH> As this relates to evolution, one view is that God designed "genomic
> phase space" and the chemical laws governing abiogenesis so that
> certain "kinds" of lifeforms (including intelligent life) will almost
> inevitably arise.
SJ> I have no problem with this in principle. The problem might be in the
> efficacy of a purely "random" search finding the solutions in the time
> available....
> "To common sense it
> seems incredible to attribute such ends to random search mechanisms,
> known by experience to be incapable, at least in finite time, of
> achieving even the simplest of ends..." (Denton M., "Evolution: A
> Theory in Crisis",1985, Burnett Books, pp60-62)
> "Although at present there is still no way of estimating rigorously
> the probability of a random search discovering functional organic
> systems, it is abundantly clear that in every analogous system,
> unguided random events cannot achieve any sort of interesting or
> complex end." (Denton, p348)
Denton may be right. On the other hand, IF it is true that the eye
evolved independently a dozen different times, that would suggest a great
deal of "direction" and efficacy built into genomic phase space.
It's too soon to tell.
> LH>Another view is that God was pleased to design the system with a
> >great number of divergent possible outcomes, within the established
> >limits, and to work with whatever happened to be the specific result.
SJ> See above. I would have no problem with this in some (or even most)
> circumstances. But why rule out God acting directly to achieve His
> specific ends?
Rule it out? Never!
--------------------------------------------------
>GOD'S USE OF SUPERNATURAL ACTIONS.
SJ> 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.
True. Though as I've said before, there is an important difference
between "ruling out" an inference and _actively_advocating_ it. Biblical
theists do not require CERTAINTY that 100% naturalistic mechanisms exist
in order to assert the PROBABILITY that "naturalistic" explanations exist.
-------------------
SJ> 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?
Yes. But I actually have a _different_ sort of "overlap" between TE and
PC in mind.
If God proscriptively determines the outcome of every "chance" event, then
God could guide evolution along a specific pathway: for example, the
appearance of a new species within an isolated subpopulation of an old
species. No _single_ "chance event" (a mutation, or an environmental
event, or whatever) would have been identifiable as a supernatural event.
If the _cumulative_ effect of these events demonstrate obvious "guidance"
(e.g. in just a few generations a novel, complex morphological feature
developed requiring many mutational steps but without any selective
advantage for each step along the way), this would fit the "Progressive
Creation" model. On the other hand, if the cumulative effect of all of
these "chance events" does NOT demonstrate obvious "guidance" (e.g. one
mutation in a developmental program gene caused a significant (though not
very deleterious) morphological change which was then acted upon by
"ordinary" microevolutionary processes to stabilize a new and
significantly altered form) -- even though God proscriptive determined
each little event along the way -- this would fit the "Theistic Evolution"
model.
Now it seems to me that: (1) There is a good deal of potential overlap
and "middle ground" available between these two. (2) Evolutionary biology
does not yet have the empirical predictive capabilities to distinguish
between these.
-----------------
SJ> ... 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.
Yes, but we (as biblical theists) can and DO properly and reasonably
expect that _some_ processes are "natural" even though we still lack 100%
knowledge of all natural mechanisms. (No need to list examples again.)
SJ> 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?),
That just makes the job more interesting. ;-)
An important question is: do the same hermeneutical and
(theistic) philosophical principles apply to both?
(I believe the answer is yes.)
SJ> 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.
I don't think there is Biblical conflict with either stellar or biological
evolution. Or alternatively, if the language is interpretted to conflict
with biological evolution, then in my mind, the exact same difficulties
must apply to stellar evolution.
Once again, thanks for your excellent replies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, | Loren Haarsma
and I'm happy to say I finally won out." | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
--Elwin P. Dowde (_Harvey_) |