Brian, when you responded to my earlier post on this subject, I got the
impression that you would like to define
"theistic evolution" = "God used finely tuned natural law
and precisely specified initial conditions."
"progressive creation" = "God guided and intervened in the evolutionary
process, perhaps obviously, perhaps subtly
or even undetectably."
I prefer to define the terms this way:
"deistic evolution" = "God carefully set up the initial conditions but
did not guide or intervene in the natural
processes until humanity arose."
"theistic evolution" = "God used and guided natural processes subtly,
so biological history does not show obvious
supernatural events/guidance (aside from the
truly astounding fact that it exists at all)."
"progressive creation" = "unguided natural processes cannot account for
the existence, diversity, and complexity of life,
so the scientific evidence suggests supernatural
guidance/intervention in biological history
(although it may have happened in many small
steps)."
I prefer my definitions because I think they more closely reflect the
actual positions people advocate in this debate. I think my definition of
PC is what Phillip Johnson and other PC authors and participants in this
reflector are _really_ arguing for.
I personally believe BOTH (a) that God guided evolutionary mechanisms in a
meaningful way beyond merely providing precise tuning and initial
conditions; AND (b) that we will probably, eventually, be able to give an
adequate scientific account of biological history in terms of natural
mechanisms, just as we can (almost) do now in galactic/stellar evolution.
Based upon what I've read in this group and elsewhere, people who agree
with me tend to call themselves TE or EC rather than PC.
(Let me also add this: The difference between "deistic" and "theistic"
evolution, as I have defined them, is almost entirely one of theological
perspective rather than scientific interpretation. I think that the
definition of "desitic evolution" may be within the bounds of orthodox
understandings of God's governance of nature -- albeit barely within the
bounds -- so long as you add God's guidance and intervention once humanity
arises.)
Brian also wrote:
BH> Not all of evolution involves chance events. If laws governing
> the evolution of a system are highly sensitive to initial conditions
> then it seems feasible at least that a significant amount of evolution
> would be determined by laws+initial conditions. Also, if there exist
> so-called "strange attractors" then it seems reasonable that
> transient "random" events may not disturb the course of evolution
> as set up by the initial conditions. Yes, yes, wild speculation :).
> [...]
> Suppose that Brian Goodwin is correct,
> i.e. (1) there is no essentially infinite continuum of morhological
> "shapes" (body plans etc) for mutations+natural selection to pick and
> choose from (2) instead there are a much fewer number of "generic forms"
> determined by nonlinear physical and chemical laws. These forms come
> "for free", they don't have to be selected for, they are "just there".
>
> Now we still have naturalistic evolution but we don't have to resort to
> the "accident of history" explanation which fails to explain. Also, the
> tape plays again (for the most part), i.e. the generic forms that are
> "just there" will be found again and again.
>
> I am interested in trying to develop these ideas further. I find it appealing
> in the sense that it provides a natural way to combine intelligent design
> with theistic evolution.
I agree. These are important and appealing ideas, and I would like to see
them developed further. I'm also interested to hear how you would
differentiate these idea from classical Deism. Thanks.
Peace,
Loren Haarsma