Steve,
For the record let me say that Hodge is indeed on your side of this
debate--I will grant that he is most likely a progressive creationist as
you have defined it. I'm not so sure that that is true of Warfield (with
the exception of the creation of the human soul). Hodge was not convinced
of evolution nor did he have the *vast evidence* (yes, I know--what
evidence? but I really think that we are at an impasse for now) that we
have today. My sole point is that Hodge's notion of mediate creation,
secondary causation, concurrence, and providence are compatible with and
evolutionary creationist perspective. I think that Warfield's sympathy for
evolution is partial evidence that I am right.
>
SJ:
>I am well aware that Hodge was talking of "continuous creation" and
>what it means. I deliberately disclosed the full context of Hodge's
>remarks so you could not accuse me of being out of context. The point
>was that Hodge clearly rejected the idea of blurring Creation and
>Providence.
>
TG:
>I'm asserting that God uses pre-existing material guided by
>>providential power (and in the case of the orgin of the human soul, a
>>special creative act) to create--this is mediate creation.
>
SJ:
This is not all that you asserted. You claimed that:
>
TG>...I do blur the distinction (between Creation and Providence) as
>>have nearly all theologians who recognize the possibility of some
>>kinds of mediate creation, including Hodge and Calvin"
>
Hodge:
>>"There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an
>>immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of
>>God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working
>>in union with second causes." (Hodge, p557)
Perhaps I should not have used the word *blur*. I must admit that it was
chosen in part just to get a response from you. But if you look at this
very citation of Hodge that you have provided you see creation AND
providence (second causes work by providence) working together in what
Hodge calls mediate creation. Now if that's not *blurring* then I invite
you to choose another word. It likely means something very similar.
>
>
SJ:>
>I agree, this might not be what Ramm meant by PC, but it is consistent
>with PC. It depends on whether "the power of God working in union
>with second causes" is direct and indirect (PC) or wholly indirect (TE
>& EC).
>
Aha! The key issue has surfaced. What do you mean by *indirect*? I do
not believe that God does anything *indirectly*. He is as actively
involved in the water turning to wine at Cana as he is in water turning to
oxygen and hydgrogen in my electrolysis experiment. You've denied it many
times, but I think that this betrays a semi-deistic view of natural
processes, i.e. that God made them and the laws which govern them, but that
he doesn't *directly* interact with them after that. He only does that in
miracles it seems. Perhaps I'm putting words in you mouth, Steve, but this
does seem to be the crux of the matter. My view of EC and TE has God
active and directly involved in "whatsoever comes to pass" by his
providential and concurring acts.
>TG>Progressive creationists, as represented by you, seem to be saying
>>that second causes, even with the power of God working in union with
>>them, cannot (or did not produce) the macroevolutionary novelty or
>>the original life forms.
>
>Before I can answer that, I would like you to define exactly you
>mean by "...with the power of God working in union with them", with
>especial reference to citations from Hodge.
I think I answered this above.
SJ
>For example, in your trial defence web page you quoted Warfield:
>
>"A few citations from Warfield's own writings will suffice to make the
>point that a theistically interpreted evolution is within in pale of
>orthodoxy and that this extends even to the origin of Adam's body. In
>his unpublished "Lectures on Anthropology" (Dec. 1888) (cited in
>Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, p. 119) he writes: The upshot of the
>whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity
>to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of
>evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work
>apart from law and WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW INTERVENTION (in the giving of
>the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction
>of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed
>authority of the Bible. But if we condition the theory by allowing
>the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and HIS OCCASIONAL
>SUPERNATURAL INTERFERENCE for the production of new beginnings by an
>actual output of creative force, producing something new i.e.,
>something not included even in posse in the preceding conditions, ;we
>may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the
>ordinary orthodox sense." (my emphasis)
>
>This is straight PC (I would endorse it fully), and not TE or EC at
>all (do you endorse it fully?). If your EC allows God's "occasional
>supernatural interference for the production of new beginnings by an
>actual output of creative force, producing something new i.e.,
>something not included even in posse in the preceding conditions",
>then we are not just "close", we are identical! :-)
Warfield explains what he is talking about in that last sentence: the
creation of the human soul, the creation of Eve. You want to add all sorts
of things like the origin of life, origin of phyla, etc. You put words in
his mouth.
As for me (and I think Warfield), I'd suggest that we let the investigation
of God's creation tell us the answer. We think that we have a handle on
the origin of phyla; of course, science is always tentative so we might be
wrong. [God's power, role in creation, etc. is undiminished by whether we
have an evolutionary expanation or not, right?] As to the origin of life,
well, I'm open to a non-interventionist account, but my theology doesn't
need one, and it's a very interesting question in terms of complexity
theory, principles of self-organization, etc. Pre-biotic evolution is a
different beast than biological evolution (although there may be common
features). The fact that we don't have solid theories of pre-biotic
evolution does not take away one iota from that support for biological
evolution that we do have--most significantly, common ancestry.
TG
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt