> LH> I am puzzled. Why is the idea of "evolution (an unfolding from
> > within)" completely antithetical to the idea of creation of SOME
> > THINGS (e.g. first life and certain (as yet unspecified) higher
> > biological taxa), but NOT antithetical to the creation of certain
> > OTHER things (increased diversity within taxa, the ocean, the
> > atmosphere, stars, galaxies, and the heavier elements necessary for
> > life to exist)?
SJ> I don't really accept that it is *evolution* in those "other things"
> either. It was a form of *creation*. For example, Gn 1:16 says
> "God...made the stars", not "the stars evolved. For me God's the
> concepts in the Bible are determinative. Neither the word
> "evolution", nor the concept of unfolding from within, appears in the
> Bible. It is either God creating, making or forming, even if
> semi-autonomous natural processes are set in train by God (compare Gn
> 1:24 "And God said, `Let the earth bring forth the...beast of the
> earth after his kind" with Gn 1:25 `And God made the beast of the
> earth after his kind..."). The problem is that materialistic-
> naturalistic science sets the terms for the debate, and they are
> fundamentally non-theistic. Henry continues:
>
> "In the evolutionary approach the principle of becoming is
> metaphysically determinative. Time is not merely the actualizer of
> new forms, but it originates them. Reality is intrinsically
> developmental. This representation of evolution may be protested as
> narrow and unimaginative...But every such protest overlooks an
> important semantic consideration. The terminology of debate today is
> largely fixed not by the theological endeavor but by the scientific
> enterprise, especially by the secular philosophy of science which
> today holds the ideologicaI initiative. The employment of
> conventional phrases with a contrary intention therefore runs needless
> apologetic hazards. What does "evolution" signify today to the man of
> science, and especially to the current philosophy of science, to which
> our overtures for reconciliation are extended?" (Henry C.F.H.,
> "Science and Religion", in Henry C.F.H., ed., "Contemporary
> Evangelical Thought: A Survey", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1968, p252)>
> No one has any problem with "the modern scientific method of
> experimentation plus observation plus induction-to-universal-
> processes". Henry is talking of the fundamental metaphysical approach
> to reality. Between reality that "is intrinsically developmental"
> (evolution) and a reality that is brought into being by "a personal
> supernatural agent" (creation).
> Henry says nothing about "separate miraculous acts" - he says "calling
> into existence...by transcendent power". I believe this is indeed
> what Genesis 1 (and indeed the other creation passages of the Bible)
> teach. Living did not make themselves - God made them. The ultimate
> cause of the "kinds" is God's word of command, even if natural
> processes were used.
> Johnson agrees with Henry when he says:
>
> "The most important statement in Scripture about creation is not
> contained in Genesis but in the opening verses of the Gospel of John:
>
> `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
> Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into
> being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.'
> (John 1:1-3)
>
> This statement plainly says that creation was by a force that was (and
> is) intelligent and personal. The essential, bedrock position of
> scientific naturalism is the direct opposite of John 1:1-3.
> Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical
> story of science, says that creation was by impersonal and
> unintelligent forces. The opposition between the biblical and
> naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise
> over it. To compromise is to surrender."
>
> (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers
> Grove Ill., 1995, pp107-108)
I believe I see several important points of agreement here.
First, I agree that the doctrine of "Creation" involves much more than (1)
the _physical_history_ of the object or system. (A physical history might
or might not include several miraculous events.)
"Creation" ALSO means that (2) the created was called into existence by an
intelligent, personal, and transcendent power.
"Creation" also means that (3) the created exist to serve and glorify the
Creator.
Based upon what you wrote above (and what you've written elsewhere), it
seems that whenever you read or use the word "evolution," you pack it with a
metaphysical baggage which is antithetical to points (2) and (3) above.
On the other hand, I reserve the word "evolutionISM" for that. I tend to
use the word "evolution" in a smaller sense, one restricted to the question
of _physical_history_ alone. (This may be because I learned to use the word
primarily in the context of physics.)
What we need in our discussion, Stephen, is a term which means the
following: "a physical history of an object or system, begining at one
point in time and ending at another, which is adequately described by the
regular and continuous operation of natural processes." (Surely such a
term is allowable in a theistic framework, is it not?) I suggest, for
now, we use the term "Natural Development." (By contrast, "miraculous
development" means that the _physical_history_ included miraculous events
inexplicable by natural mechanisms.)
We agree that objects or systems which have a "natural development" are
just as much under the governance of the Creator as objects which have (or
had) a "miraculous development."
Now let me rephrase the very top paragraph. I see absolutely nothing
antithetical between the idea of Creation, and the idea of a Natural
Development from a universe of nearly uniform hydrogen and helium to one
with galaxies, stars, heavier elements, and planets. I see absolutely
nothing antithetical between the idea of Creation and the idea of a Natural
Development from a proto-star to a stellar system including a planet with
an atmosphere, dry land, and a water ocean. (Are you with me so far?)
Finally, I see absolutely nothing antithetical between the idea of Creation
and the idea of a Natural Development from a lifeless planet (under suitable
initial conditions) to one with primitive life, follwed by increased
complexity and biological novelty.
----------------------
Finally, I'd like to answer C.F. Henry's rhetorical question,
> What does "evolution" signify today to the man of
> science, and especially to the current philosophy of science, to which
> our overtures for reconciliation are extended?"
I'll answer (based upon my experience) what "evolution" signifies today to
the man or woman of physics and astronomy. When refering to galactic,
stellar, planetary, or almost any cosmology process, he or she means
"Natural Development" as I defined it above. He or she may disagree with me
about whether the stars were called into existence by God, and whether their
ultimate purpose is to serve and glorify the creator, but we CAN agree on
whether or not stars have a "natural development."
And in my experience, biologists often use the term "evolution" in a similar
way --- in the technical sense "natural development" rather than the
philosophical sense of evolutionism. When we clarify the differences
between these two meanings of the word "evolution," we are well prepared for
"overtures for reconciliation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wonder if your feelings |
on this matter are clear...." | Loren Haarsma
--the Emperor (_Return_of_the_Jedi_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu