On Mon, 26 Feb 1996 05:23:13 -0500 you wrote:
>BH>1. I believe one of the most compelling reasons for creationist
>opposition to evolution is a concern that children will interpret it
>to mean that God is at best unnecessary and at worst nonexistent.
SJ>Not just "children". Creationists are equally concerned that as the
>evolutionary paradigm takes hold it becomes much more difficult to
>evangelise adults.
SJ>My experience has been that adults who will not listen to
>young-earth creationist arguments _will_ listen to the Gospel of
>Jesus Christ. Sometimes you have to assure them that you don't have
>to accept a 6000-year-old earth to be a Christian, but once that
>assurance is made, they are willing to listen.
Agreed, but this is a shift from "creationist opposition to
evolution" to evolutionist opposition to creation! :-)
BH>I doubt that there would be much resistance to PC views, since
>they are able to accomodate the scientific evidence. But what Walter
>ReMine says of evolution is also true of PC: it _accomodates_ (as
>opposed to _explains_) the scientific evidence.
PC is a high-level metaphysical model which starts with the Biblical
picture of a God who intervenes in biological history to bring into
being new designs over time (Gn 1), and attempts to relate the
scientific facts to this picture. PC does not claim to be a
scientific theory, much less a fact "like digestion" (Howells), "like
apples falling out of trees" (Gould) or "as well established as the
fact
that the earth revolves around the sun" (Gould), as evolution does.
PC would be very happy if evolution admitted it was a high-level
metaphysisical model which "accomodates (as opposed to explains) the
scientific evidence"! :-)
>BH>2. Re Terry's remark about "Phil Johnson's view that if God's
>activity is not evident then he is a superfluous add-on to our
>thinking". An implication of this view, IMO, is that however God
>goes about performing His oversight of nature, man can detect it.
SJ>There is here the usual TE blurring of Creation and Providence.
>:-)
BH>Here is the usual creationist assertion which implies that the
>demarcation between creation and providence must be drawn in a
>particular way. Perhaps it must, but I doubt that we know, with our
>current imperfect human knowledge, how it must be drawn.
PC would consider it a start if TE even accepted there was a
"demarcation between creation and providence" that "must be
drawn in a particular way".
BH>(Actually, we know it's a fractal :-))
Please explain to this unlearned and ignorant layman! :-)
BH>You want to attribute life itself, or certain features of it, to
>creation, because naturalistic explanations to date are inadequate.
>But what naturalistic explanations can deal with changes as knowledge
>progresses. If you attribute life itself to creation, the very real
>advances in understanding some aspects of the biochemical basis of
>life create the risk that some people will make an unwarranted
>extrapolation from those advances to life itself and conclude that
>there is no reason for God. If you fix on some aspects of life, you
>run the very real risk that those aspects will be understood. And an
>individual who has based his faith on those aspects has a problem.
Perhaps PC is being more scientific than TE, in that it is willing to
make a risky, falsifiable prediction (eg. that spontaneous generation
of life is impossible) and stand by it? What is TE's risky prediction?
:-)
SJ>There is no dispute that in His regular "oversight" of the world,
>God acts largely through secondary causes, and therefore in general a
>naturalistic explanation is adequate. That eukaryotic cells with
>mitochondria and chloroplast organelles reproduce "after their kind",
>and this can be describes naturalistically, is not in dispute. What
>is in dispute is the *origin* of those eukaryotic organelles. The
>naturalistic and theistic evolutionists would argue that because the
>*operations* of such biosystems can be described fully
>naturalistically, therefore the *origins* of the same biosystems can
>also be described fully naturalistically.
BH>That looks like a nonsequiter to me.
Why, do you think it does not follow? Do you think that both
"origins" and "operations" can be "described fully naturalistically"?
BH>And we have seen numerous quotations in this reflector from
>evolutionary theorists who consider the origin of life a puzzle.
By "puzzle" do you mean permanently and inherently inexplicable
naturalistically? Or just a "puzzle" that may be cleared up as further
information comes to light?
BH>The postulated origin of organelles in eukaryotes -- originally
separate organisms -- may be a reasonable assumption from a biological
point of view. If it is, biologists should consider it and work out
its implications. Someday it may be rejected, or may become pretty
firmly established.
It must be one or the other! :-) What is your point here, Bill?
BH>I don't see that the outcome of that particular issue has any
>serious implications for the _fact_ of creation. From a Christian
>point of view it's an argument about the means God used to develop
>one particualr aspect of His creation, not about whether He
>created/creates in the first place.
But where are these "created" events located in biological history?
Gould has caleld "the division between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, not
between plants and animals, as the fundamental partition of life"
(Gould S.J., "An Early Start", "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London,
1980, p185). One would have thought that if the intervention of God
was not needed there, it was not needed anywhere?
SJ>OTOH creationists (both Fiat and Progressive) would question that
>assumption. They would argue on the analogy of Genesis 1 (eg. Gn
>1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation..." ), that it is
>possible (if not probable) that the origin of higher taxa such as
>eukaryotes, cannot be described fully naturalistically, and required
>the creative intervention of God.
BH>As I've mentioned before, one possible interpretation of "Let the
>land produce vegetation..." is that it is actually a command to
>nature to produce something God has equipped it to produce. Then the
>creative acts are in endowing nature with the ability to carry out
>God's commands and in issuing the commands.
If God had "equipped' nature, why the multiple "commands"? I there
was one big endowment at the beginning, what is the point of the
depiction of God creating progressively over six "days"?
SJ>It is indeed possible that God has created the living world in such
>a way that man cannot detect it, but this would mean that it is
>indistinguishable from naturalistic evolution. This seems at odds
>with the general expectation that God's works in nature should resist
>a naturalistic interpretations of origin (see ReMine W.J., "The Biotic
>Message", 1993, p20),
BH>One of the weak points IMO of Walter's book, is that he doesn't
>clearly establish _why_ anyone other than a theist should have that
>expectation.
Nevertheless, for *theists* his point is valid. If the origin of
nature can be explained 100% naturalistically, then mankind is no
longer "without excuse" (Rom 1:20). William Lane Craig says:
"But is it in fact the case that there is no probatory evidence that a
Supreme Being exists? This was not the opinion of the biblical
writers. The Psalmist said, "The heavens are telling of the glory of
God; and their expanse is declaring the work of his hands" (Ps 19:1),
and the apostle Paul declared, "Since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been
clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that
they [men] are without excuse" (Rom 1:20). NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT
THIS EVIDENCE IS SO AMBIGUOUS AS TO ADMIT OF EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE
COUNTER-EXPLANATIONS-for then people would not be "without excuse."
Thus, people are without excuse for not believing in God's existence,
not only because of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, but
also because of the external witness of nature." (Craig W.L.,
"Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", Crossway Books:
Wheaton Ill., Revised Edition, 1994, p77)
SJ>in order that man is "without excuse" (Rom 1:20).
BH>Of course man is without excuse.
Just saying it is not enough. Exactly *why* is "man is without excuse"
if the origin of the living world can be explained fully
naturalistically?
BH>But I would also draw your attention to John 6:44: "No one can
>come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him;..."
Agreed, but this is a verse concerning *salvation*, not concerning
*general revelation*, ie. whether man is "without excuse" for
rejecting the clear witness of God's work in nature.
BH>I grant that some people do become Christians after having
>concluded that nature requires a creator. But the Father drew them, or
>they would never have sought Him. It's also possible for people to be
>drawn to the Father without having given up their current views about the
>origin of life. These people may have to rethink their views of ultimate
>causation, or may even become PC's, but first they have to come to Christ.
Agreed. God can always work miracles in individual lives (eg. St.
Paul, St. Augustine, John Newton, etc), but I get back to my original
point that "as the evolutionary paradigm takes hold it becomes much
more difficult to evangelise adults.". If there was a 100%
naturalistic explanation of the *origin* of life (not just its
*operation*), then it would be harder (humanly speaking) to win
people to Christ. Indeed, I myself would reconsider atheism as a live
option.
>BH>...People like Richard Dawkins of course fall into the same
>error when they claim that since they can find no evidence of God
>from their investigations, God doesn't exist. Again they're assuming
>that no matter how God goes about His oversight, if He indeed were
>doing so, they could detect it....God's instructions for how men
>can know Him include Hebrews 11.
SJ>There is a difference between all men being aware that God exists
>so that they are "without excuse" (Rom 1:20) and them knowing that
>God personally (Heb 11).
BH>Agreed. That's exactly the point. "Without faith it is impossible
>to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and
>that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him". How do origins
>arguments instill faith?
How do we know there is a "Him" to "please" if there is no witness in
nature, or if it is so overlaid with naturalistic assumptions that it
becomes unrecognisable?
SJ>If we Christians grant that atheists like Dawkins can indeed "find
>no evidence of God from their investigations", then we would be
>hard-pressed to deny that they would be perfectly justified in
>claiming that "God doesn't exist".
BH>What is lacking in Richard Dawkins is not better investigation, or
>even better thinking about what he should conclude from his
>investigations. Materialistic investigations are not going to tell
>him unequivocally whether God exists. What is lacking is the faith
>Hebrews 11 tells us about, and that faith is lacking because the Holy
>Spirit has not (yet I pray) brought about a realization in Dr.
>Dawkins that there _is_ a sovereign God of the universe. What should
>we do? Some Christians love to lambaste him. Some try to argue with
>him, I'm sure. The best we can do for him is pray for him.
Agreed, but the point is that if the universe can be explained 100%
naturalistically, and indeed looks like a "blind watchmaker", why is
then Dawkins "without excuse" if he thinks that God is "superfluous":
"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between
what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'.
Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in
instantaneous creation. The evidence for some sort of evolution has
become too overwhelming. But many theologians who call themselves
evolutionists...smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some
sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken,
either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of
course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more
comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary
change.
We cannot disprove beliefs like these, especially if it is assumed
that God took care that his interventions always closely mimicked what
would be expected from evolution by natural selection. All that we
can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous and,
secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to
explain, namely organized complexity. The one thing that makes
evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized
complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity.
If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the
organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by
guiding evolution, that deity must already have been vastly complex in
the first place. The creationist, whether a naive Bible-thumper or an
educated bishop, simply postulates an already existing being of
prodigious intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow
ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity without
offering an explanation, we might as well make a job of it and simply
postulate the existence of life as we know it!"
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p316)
What exactly *is* TE's answer to Dawkins?
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------