TG: "Curiously, David, I consider myself to be a theistic
evolutionist (or preferably an evolutionary creationist) and I
do not have the absolutist commitment to continuity that you
suggest is the case for TE's (EC's). My point always is that God
does and can do much of his creative work through ordinary means
where the means (not just the starting and ending points) can be
studied by scientific methodology. I don't particular care for
the word "intervention" but if you must use it, then I am of the
opinion that God is continuously "intervening". The how of this
is somewhat of a mystery (OK by me) and leads us back to the long
forgotten theological notion of concurrence."
Thanks, Terry, for your comments, which I would like to respond
to. Your above description of TE thinking is much how I would
describe the TE position. Anyone who has a commitment to the
biblical doctrine of "Providence" will agree that God is
continuously active in upholding/sustaining his creation. In my
experience, TEs generally do not care for the term
"intervention", thinking of it as a tendency to deism - whereby
"ordinary" or "natural" processes are incorrectly thought of as
somehow proceeding in an autonomous or semi-autonomous way.
TG: "The taxonomy of these various positions is extremely
complicated as has been shown by Loren Haarsma and others. It
seems to me that you are working with a much too "clean" view of
TE (EC)."
Maybe. I have followed with great interest the discussions over
the past year on this. I certainly find a greater spectrum among
TE/EC advocates in the US than here in the UK. But I have
concluded that the UK TEs do have a stronger, more coherent
position - despite the objection that they are too "clean". I
would say that these folk are committed to methodological
naturalism and the principle of complementarity. Not only does
this relate to biological evolution, but also to abiogenesis,
galaxy formation and even the Big Bang. Two quotes to support
this:
"This idea, that (as a Christian would put it) God's way of
working has been slow and gradual (the bodies of higher animals
coming into being through descent with modification from earlier
species), is all that should be meant by the term 'evolution' as
used in science". from Donald MacKay's "The Clockwork Image",
IVP, 1974, page 51.
"Such a theory is helpful for Christian theism in that it shows
the inadequacy of a God of the gaps approach to the origin of the
universe. A god who simply lights the blue touch paper of the
Big Bang is a god of deism. The God of the Bible is the creator
and sustainer of the universe, guaranteeing the physical laws and
acting on the ground of intelligibility and purpose. Hawking may
not yet have a consistent theory of quantum gravity but it is
likely that one day a scientific explanation of the initial
singularity will be given". from David Wilkinson's "God, the Big
Bang and Stephen Hawking", Monarch Publications, 1993, page 142.
TG: "Another point has to do with design. Even Richard Dawkins
admits to design--he just has an explanation for it that doesn't
require an intelligent agent. TE's only deny design if you
define design in such a way as rule out God's involvement in
ordinary (or naturally occurring processes) which PJ implicitly
does as evidenced by his all out attack on those of us who hold
this view.
Just because I can account for some phenomenon in naturalistic
terms does not mean that it comes without the plan, purpose, or
design of God."
Past discussions on this reflector did address some of these
issues - and I contributed some thoughts. The conclusion I came
to was that TEs are justified in saying that their position does
not rule out God's plan and purpose, but that there is something
wrong when "design" is brought in as well. It may be that this
should be opened up again. I would merely point out here that
"design" is almost exclusively a "faith"-word with UK TEs.
Design can be recognised as a complementary perspective on the
natural world, but it is unthinkable to introduce the concept of
intelligent design into science.
TG: "As to the lumping together of the seemingly disparate types
of creationists--you seem to suggest that it is opposition to a
mechanical view of things that links them together. I think that
it more reasonable to suggest that the thing linking them
together is common belief that one must resort to some kind of
special intervention by God in order to explain some features of
creation and that this is required by scripture (YEC) or provides
some important apologetic function (ID)."
Please bear in mind that I do not accept "intervention" as an
appropriate term either! God is continuously active in his
relationship with creation whether he uses ordinary or
extraordinary means. If one is opposed to a mechanistic
universe, does it not imply a commitment to a worldview where the
chain of physical cause and effect is broken in places -
depending on the will of God? The two categories you suggest
appear to me to be one.
TG: "In my opinion Del's chapter on TE accurately recognizes this
faulty understanding on the part of the Johnson crowd. These are
extremely important issues that to me undergird a Christian
perspective on science. I don't really understand why we keep
going round and round on this one--I suppose it ultimately comes
down to TE's willing to keep company with those atheistic
naturalists on some of the scientific claims."
I am sure one reason we keep going round and round is that we
don't understand each other! This forum does provide an
invaluable service by bringing disparate views together. I'll
try to pick up on the last point in a further post - it is my
opinion that the "ultimate" reasons for these differences relates
to our presuppositions (regarding the nature of science, the
interrelationship between revealed truth and our scientific
activities, etc). However, enough for today...
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***