On Sat, 16 Dec 1995 23:14:41 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
[continued)
>DL>Part of the problem with our debates is terminology. "Darwinist"
>macro-evolution is not the evolution held by Dawkins. Darwin through
>all six editions of the Origin of Species believed in a teleological
>evolution (That's a chapter in my theology PhD). For that matter,
>right up to the year he died in 1882, and yes he fipped around on the
>issue, he believed in teleology.
SJ>Firstly I don't use Darwinist in the sense of exactly what
>Charles Darwin believed. I use it as Dawkins and Gould use it today -
>the broad Neo-Darwinist theory of macro-evolution involving random
>mutation and various selection mechanisms.
SJ>Secondly, I don't believe that Darwin really believed in teleology
>in any meaningful way. This was Charles Hodge's considered opinion and
>it would be supported by modern Darwinists like Gould and Dawkins.
>Most consider Darwin's reference to a Creator as either a hands-off
>Deistic First Cause or just a sop to the Church and/or his Unitarian
>wife.
DL>Sorry Stephen but you are very wrong here. Do read:
> (1) James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies (1979)
> (2) David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders (1987)
> (3) And if I may, my own PhD dissertation on evangelical reactions to
> Darwinism including a chapter on Darwin's own relgious evolution.
I have read Livingstone's "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders"
DL>All three authors are evangelicals. Hodge wrote in 1874 "What Is
>Darwinism?", but he did not have accesss to Darwin's personal notebooks,
>diaries or letters. Darwin is clearly teleological in these works
>though he occassionally slips into a dysteleological mode, but
>that is the exception, not the rule.
Sorry, we must agree to disagree. Even if Darwin had a residual
Deistic teleology, his followers clearly recognised that his
materialistic theory did not:
"Professor Huxley says that when he first read Darwin's book he
regarded it as the death-blow of teleology, i.e., of the doctrine of
design and purpose in nature...in his lay Sermons and Addresses, p.
330. `The teleological argument,' he says, `runs thus: An organ or
organism is precisely fitted to perform a function or purpose;
therefore it was specially constructed to perform that function . In
Paley's famous illustration, the adaptation of all the parts of the
watch to the function, or purpose, of showing the time, is held to be
evidence that the watch was specially contrived to that end; on the
ground that the only cause we know of, competent to produce such an
effect as a watch which shall keep time, is a contriving intelligence
adapting the means directly to that end.' Suppose, however, he goes
on to say, it could be shown that the watch was the product of a
structure which kept time poorly, and that of a structure which was no
watch at all, and that of a mere revolving barrel, then `the force of
Paley's argument would be gone; and it would be `demonstrated that
an apparatus thoroughly well adapted to a particular purpose might be
the result of a method of trial and error worked by unintelligent
agents, as well as of the direct application of the means appropriate
to that end, by an intelligent agent.' This is precisely what he
understands Darwin to have accomplished." (Hodge C., "Systematic
Theology", Vol. II, James Clark & Co: London, 1960 (reprint),
pp16-17).
DL>Remember the first generation of Darwin scholars were scientists
>and not historians. And they were steeped in Whiggish historiography
>and wrote positivistic "hagiographies".
No doubt. But I think EC's revisonist effort to find some meaningful
teleology in Darwin will convince few outside your circle. Gould (who
teaches both science and history) claims Darwin's notebooks reveal his
uncompromising philosophical materialism:
"When Darwin achieved his Malthusian insight, he was twenty-nine years
old...He was not about to compromise a promising career by
promulgating a heresy that he could not prove. What then was his
heresy? A belief in evolution itself is the obvious answer. Yet this
cannot be a major part of the solution; for, contrary to popular
belief, evolution was a very common heresy during the first half of
the nineteenth century...An extraordinary pair of Darwin's
early notebooks may contain the answer (see H. E. Gruber and P. H.
Barrett, Darwin on Man, for text and extensive commentary). These
so-called M and N notebooks were written in 1838 and 1839, while
Darwin was compiling the transmutation notebooks that formed the basis
for his sketches of 1842 and 1844. They contain his thoughts on
philosophy, esthetics, psychology, and anthropology. On rereading
them in 1856, Darwin described them as "full of metaphysics on
morals." They include many statements showing that he espoused but
feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than
evolution itself: philosophical materialism-the postulate that matter
is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual
phenomena are its by-products...The notebooks prove that Darwin was
interested in philosophy and aware of its implications. He knew that
the primary feature distinguishing his theory from all other
evolutionary doctrines was its uncompromising philosophical
materialism. Other evolutionists spoke of vital forces, directed
history, organic striving, and the essential irreducibilty of mind-a
panoply of concepts that traditional Christianity could accept in
compromise, for they permitted a Christian God to work by evolution
instead of creation. Darwin spoke only of random variation and
natural selection. In the notebooks Darwin resolutely applied his
materialistic theory of evolution to all phenomena of life, including
what he termed "the citadel itself" - the human mind. And if mind has
no real existence beyond the brain, can God be anything more than an
illusion invented by an illusion?" (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin",
Penguin: London, 1977, pp23-25)
>DL>But coming back to the rapidity of organic change, it certainly
>gives one the impression that there is Someone behind the process.
SJ>Agreed. But I am prepared to stick my neck out and affirm that that
>Someone is not only "behind" the process, but He intervenes in it at
>strategic points, giving it new content and direction.
DL>OK. Stephen, "stick your neck out" and give me some examples where
>God intervened in the progressive creation of species, describing to
>me the exact molecular (1) addition and/or (2) manipulation of a
>genetic program.
I have already pointed out this demand for minute detail is unfair,
since evolutionists don't provide it either. I have pointed out in a
previous post that Acanthostega growing a foot by a fin, by a change
in HOX genes, as a possible example of an Intelligent Designer's
intervention. However, I don't have detailed knowledge of extinct
amphibian genetics, so I will rely on others to fill in the exact I
have already posted you a quote by Jastrow that points out that the
unique events of creation will always be inaccessible to science.
PC's may never be able to show exactly which gene God modified in
which particular animal in which particuar species and when. So
non-PC's may always be able to scoff "Where is thy `exact molecular
(1) addition and/or (2) manipulation of a genetic program?' " (cf.
Ps 42:3) :-). Suffice it to say, I predict that as the facts come in,
it will become more consistent with a progressive creation and less
consistent with naturalistic evolution.
>DL>However, one does not need to posit God's direct hand in these
>rapid changes.
SJ>Why would a Christian theist describe this as a "need" as though
>positing "God's direct hand" was something to be avoided?
DL>Because it sets one up for the classic problem of a God of the
>Gaps. If you give me an example of a gap (as requested above), the
>great problem is that it is going to be filled in the future by a
>newly discovered mechanism. That is the history of science.
Implicit in this is the assumption that there are no gaps. This is
not proven:
"...even if the gaps in naturalistic scientific explanations are
getting smaller, this does not prove that there are no gaps at all.
It begs the question to argue that just because most alleged gaps turn
out to be explainable in naturalistic terms without gaps at that level
of explanation, all alleged gaps will turn out this way. After all,
it is to be expected that gaps will be few. Gaps due to primary
divine agency are miracles, and they are in the minority for two
reasons: (1) God's usual way of operating (though I acknowledge the
need for further clarity regarding this notion) is through secondary
causes. Primary causal gaps are God's extraordinary, unusual way of
operating; by definition, these will be few and far between. (2) The
evidential or sign value of a miraculous gap arises most naturally
against a backdrop where the gaps are rare, unexpected and have a
religious context (there are positive theological reasons to expect
their presence). (Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis",
Inter Varsity Press: Illinois, 1994, pp59-60)
Indeed, the trend is towards more and more gaps that science seems
unable to fill, eg. the origin of the universe, and the origin of
life.
SJ>Sorry, but this is one "PC brother" who believes fully "that there
>is design in the process"! :-)
DL>You're a crypto-EC.
No - if you believe God intervened anywhere in biological history (eg.
the origin of life, the origin of man) - then you are a psuedo-PC! :-)
SJ>But I also believe that God can and
>did plan to intervene in the process. That is the pattern of God's
>working from Genesis to Revelation.
DL>There is a theological extrapolation here:
>It is that since God
>intervened in the affairs of man as clearly depicted by the Bible, then
>if follows that God directly intervened in the Progressive Creation of
>life. That is a possible consequence, but not a NECESSARY one.
Agreed, it is not "necessary" that God act the same way in biological
history (ie. intervening decisively at strategic points), as He has
in human history. But I would argue that is more than a "possible
consequence", it is *probable* that God acts consistently in similar
ways in both biological history. The only God I know of is the God of
the Bible and He has revealed himself as an intervening God. I
therefore expect that as He has intervened in human history (if the
Bible is to be believed), then I would also expect that He has
similarly intervened in biological history. If someone can show
conclusively that He has not, then I will accept that my expectation
was wrong.
DL>It is clear that the Bible informs your science. But let us try
>employing this in a related scientific field--developmental biology.
>Let me use your the structure of your argument in hope of making a
>point. What do you think my colleagues in development biology
>(including some Christian ones) would say if I were to them:
>
>"But I also believe that God can and did plan to intervene in the
>process of EMBRYOLOGY. That is the pattern of God's working
>from Genesis to Revelation."
You are caricaturing my argument. I do not claim that God intervenes
in the day-to-day natural processes studied by "developmental
biology". My claim is only that He did intervene in the *origin*
of new biological design. I think it highly likely that God did build
on his existing designs, and use natural mechanism such as HOX
genes to produce the new beings He wanted.
As to the power of the analogy between God's working in biological
history similar to the way He worked in human history, it depends
on your colleagues belief in the first proposition. Non-Christians
would presumably reject outright that God has worked in human
history, so my argument from analogy would be meaningless to
them. But I would hope your Christian colleagues would give it
a fair hearing and consider it.
DL>So every time I come on to a problem in the development (say like
>the one I am working on right now--dental initiation in the oral
>epithelium), do I just bring out the "trump card" and say , "Well,
>that must be where God has intervened"? If this becomes one's
>methodology, then one's theology of God's activity reflects our
>ignorance of the scientific issue under investigation.
See above. I am not sure what "dental initiation in the oral
epithelium" is. Do you claim it is a macro-evolutionary event? If
som then please provide a plausible 100% naturalistic explanation of
it. If it is not a macro-evolutionary event, then PC has no argument
with it. PC only claims that the *vertical* steps in biological
history are cause by divine intervention:
"In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation.
The amount is to be determined by the geological record and
biological experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation.
Vertical radiation is only by fiat creation. A root-species may give
rise to several species by horizontal radiation, through the process
of the unraveling of gene potentialities or recombination.
Horizontal radiation could account for much which now passes as
evidence for the theory of evolution. The gaps in the geological
record are gaps because vertical progress takes place only by
creation." (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p191).
SJ>Sorry Denis, but modern materialistic-naturalistic science will not
>accept "contributions of the PCs and YECs". When a respected
>evolutionist origin of life researcher named Prof. Dean Kenyon
>proposed Intelligent Design as a possible scientific hypothesis based
>on the evidence, he was removed from teaching duties. To criticise
>creationists for not making a contribution to mainstream scientific
>debate is a bit like Saddam Hussein criticising the Iraqi people for
>not forming an opposition party! :-)
DL>Stephen, the reason is that PCs and YECs are usually not
>scientists. Oh, there are the Kenyons, Gishes, and Morrises . . .
>but they are an anomly.
So was Jesus! :-)
"As Thomas Kuhn taught us, a shaky paradigm liv;es on through its
power to make anomalies invisible." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press, Illinois, Second Edition, 1993, p211).
SJ>And thank you for this opportunity to clarify my view of PC.
DL>Yes, and thank you to you. It is always a pleasure, you help me
>clarify my views as well.
Good! We are now both seeing so clearly, we can throw away our
spectacles! Now all I need is for you to be able to fill my bad tooth
over the Internet! :-)
Well, its Sunday morning on a lovely summers' day (we are going to
church tonight). The temperature is about 30 degrees C, so I think I
will go outside and take a dip in my pool, while you poor Canadians
freeze! :-)
Happy Christmas
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------