> What are the apologetic merits of your position over the other; i.e.,
> what in your position would compel an unbeliever to believe in an
> intelligent Creator?
I offer "definitions" of PC and TE and give a brief list of their
strengths and weaknesses. I invite suggestions/corrections on this.
----------------------------
It seems good, at the begining of a calendar year, to step back from the
minutia of the debate and to attempt an overview of Progressive Creation
and Theistic Evolution.
I would like to suggest the following brief "definitions," along with a
list of their practical consequences, common misperceptions, strengths,
and weaknesses. I'll try to be even-handed, and I hope that some of you
will offer suggestions, additions, and corrections to this list. (This
answer is broader Dennis' original question, but it does have apologetic
content.)
DEFINITIONS:
------------
"Progressive Creation" attempts to understand biological history within
the biblical framework of a Creator-God who occasionally intervenes into
history to achieve his purposes.
"Theistic Evolution" attempts to understand biological history within the
biblical framework of a Creator-God who calls into being, orders, and
continually sustains all natural processes.
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES:
-----------------------
++ Progressive creationists see certain areas of biological history as
prime candidates for instances of God's "miraculous intervention."
(e.g. the appearance of first life, the appearance of higher taxa,
the appearance of biological novelty and complexity --- areas where
macroevolutionary theory is particularly vulnerable to scientific
criticism.)
++ Most progressive creationists _actively_advocate_ one or more of these
areas as _evidence_ of God's miraculous activity in the past.
== Theistic evolutionists see these SAME areas of biological history as
fruitful areas of scientific research, with the potential for
discovering new insights into the amazing natural processes which God
created.
== Most theistic evolutionists believe it is inadvisable (both
scientifically and theologically) to advocate any of these areas as
_evidence_ for God's miraculous activity in the past, and argue
against doing so.
COMMON MISPERCEPTIONS:
----------------------
Progressive Creation has been criticized as being a "god-of-the-gaps."
It is not.
++ Theologically, PC's know and acknowledge that God is equally involved
in, and sovereign over, ALL processes --- both "natural" and
"miraculous."
++ Practically, PC's do NOT always retreat to the position that "God did
it" _whenever_ they encounter a scientific puzzle; rather, they have
specific scientific and theological reasons (*1) for believing that
God probably used miraculous intervention in these _specific_ areas
of biological history.
Theistic Evolution has been criticized as a capitulation to Deism or
Philosophical Naturalism. It is not.
== Theologically, TE's know and acknowledge that God can miraculously
intervene in the natural world, and that He has done so in the past.
==Practically, TE's agree that many historical descriptions would be
incomplete and inaccurate without reference to God's miracles (e.g.
the history of Isreal); however, they have specific scientific and
theological reasons (*1) for believing that in these _specific_ areas
of biological history (first life, higher taxa, biological novelty,
etc.) God probably did use miraculous intervention.
STRENGTHS OF EACH:
------------------
++ The _framework_ of Progressive Creation matches the traditional
Christian framework for thinking about Genesis 1. (i.e. a sequence of
miraculous acts) (*2)
++ PC creates apologetic dialogue by emphasizing scientific critiques
where macroevoltionary theory is weak, and offering these as
candidates for God's activity.
== The _framework_ of Theistic Evolution matches the "traditional" (*3)
Christian framework for thinking about God's on-going governance of
the natural world (e.g. the motion of the planets, the regular
changing of the seasons, the weather, the maintenance of the ecology,
the development of multi-cellular organisms from zygotes).
== The framework of TE also matches the typical (non-YEC) Christian
framework for thinking about God's creation of the universe's
_physical_ forms (e.g. the heavier elements, galaxies, stars,
planets, the earth's atmosphere and ocean).
== By emphasizing God's sovereignty over EVERY natural event and process,
TE offers an immediate critique of the "mythology of chance" which
often clings to debate about origins.
WEAKNESSES OF EACH:
-------------------
(I should qualify this section. I do not think any of these "weaknesses"
pose unanswerable problems for PC or TE. Each one is answerable.
However, in all fairness, we should admit that they are GENERALLY
PERCEIVED as "problem areas" by critics of PC/TE (respectively) --- and
these "weaknesses" do occasionally cause late-night worries to advocates
of PC/TE as well. :-)
++ Since PC neither predicts nor precludes any SPECIFIC miracles in
biological history, PC requires additional hypotheses to explain the
ACTUAL data. (For example, homologies in non-coding regions of DNA
can be explained by proposing that God's miracles involved altering
DNA in existing indivduals, rather than _de_novo_ creating new
individuals. The existence of several reptile/bird "hybrid" species
before modern birds arose can be explained by proposing that God
decided to introduce his new lifeforms gradually, over millions of
years, with several intervening species, to allow the ecologies time
to adapt.) These additions are not incompatible with PC, but neither
are they are predicted by the framework of PC, and therefore have the
"look and feel" of _ad_hoc_ additions.
++ When PC does make predictions at variance with macroevolution, they
are almost invariably _negative_ predictions. (I.e., "Scientists
will never find a natural mechanism which could accomplish
_______________.")
++ PC faces a dilemma when it is asked to specify which PARTICULAR
elements of biological history must have been miraculous. If PC does
not specify particular events, it appears somewhat vacuous. If PC
_does_ specify particular events, it risks being discredited.
++ God could have provided unambiguous and easily accessible proof of his
existence in the natural world; He apparently chose not to do so. If
the laws of chemistry and biology really do preclude abiogensis and
really do limit evolution to microevolution, this seems an obtuse
place for the Creator to provide proof of his existence.
== When confronted with serious scientific criticisms of abiogenesis and
macroevolution (the pattern of stasis and rapid change in the fossil
record, and the origins of higher taxa, complexity, and biological
novelty), TE's --- like non-theistic evolutionists --- must resort to
saying, "Hey, we THINK there are natural mechanisms, just give us a
little more time to understand them." (This is never a very
satisfying response.) And if abiogenesis or macroevolution is
ultimately "disproved," so will be TE.
== Since TE doesn't make any _scientific_ predictions different from
deistic or non-theistic evolution, it must use (sometimes esoteric)
philosophical and theological language to explain how TE is different
from deism.
== TE's find it difficult to confront Philosophical Naturalism in a pithy
way. TE's can, and do, argue that Naturalists' metaphysical
conclusions are unwarrented from the scientific data, but such
philosophical arguments don't have the visceral impact of the PC's
claim that Naturalists' _scientific_ conclusions are tainted.
== TE's often find it difficult to express, to non-scientific laymen
(both Christians and non-Christians), just "what it is God DOES" in
their framework.
== It always seems impious to argue AGAINST a miracle. (For example,
Joan's cancer goes into remission. Joan believes this is a miracle.
You know that ten percent of all cancers of Joan's type spontaneously
go into remission, and that for women of Joan's age the number is
actually 30%; in additon, several medical journal articles have
recently been published suggesting possible mechanisms for these
remissions. Should you argue with Joan?) Yet this is the situation
in which TE finds itself.
--------------------------------------------
(*1) The _specific_ scientific and theological reasons offered by PC's and
TE's can, of course, be found on the WWW archives of this discussion
group, and the in the books and articles written by contributers to this
discussion group, and other books refered to in our discussion.
(*2) The typical PC chronology of events does not exactly match the
Genesis 1 chronology, nor does PC offer one-to-one correspondence with the
"days" of Genesis; however, PC's _general_framework_ of a SEQUENCE OF
MIRACULOUS ACTS is the same as the traditional Christian framework of
understanding Genesis.)
(*3) The Christian "tradition" I refer to --- the tradition of
understanding "natural processes" such as gravity, nuclear forces,
erosion, molecular biology, etc. as all being sovereignly ordained and
sustained by God --- can technically only be as old as the scientific
revolution itself; however, pre-scientific versions of it are found in the
natural philosophy of several church fathers and theologians, and echos of
it can be seen some Hebrew scriptures.
---------------------------
I hope this has been useful. Let me end this by repeating those
definitions, and ask for input.
"Progressive Creation" attempts to understand biological history within
the biblical framework of a Creator-God who occasionally intervenes into
history to achieve his purposes.
"Theistic Evolution" attempts to understand biological history within the
biblical framework of a Creator-God who calls into being, orders, and
continually sustains all natural processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... No, but the truth is more complicated." | Loren Haarsma
--Dad (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu