On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:40:37 -0400, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
[...]
SJ>"This is just Howard's private pejorative epithet for creationists,
>presumably in order to give the impression that they hold an unusual view
>and that Howard's is the normal view. But the fact is that the vast
>majority of Christians are today, and have been down through the ages,
>what Howard calls 'episodic creationist'."
SJ>Interesting eisegesis of my remarks, but quite off the mark. There's
>nothing in the term 'episodic creationist' that is inherently pejorative or
>indicative of some abnormality.
This is not "eisegesis" but *exegesis* of Howard's remarks. I am a
creationist and I take being called an 'episodic creationist' as offensive. I
base this on the words that Howard uses in conjunction with 'episodic
creationist' like "18th century artisan metaphor", "irruptive, form-imposing"
and "outlived its usefullness". Either Howard has a big problem in choosing
words, or he deliberately intends to put down creationists.
HVT>In fact, I agree with Stephen that it is the portrait of the Creation's
>formational history that is most common in contemporary Christianity. I
>also happen to think it is a portrait that has outlived its usefullness, but
>that's another matter.
Howard concedes my point that what he calls `episodic creationist' is the
view "that is most common in contemporary Christianity." Howard hopes
this will change in the future so that his `evolutionary creationist' viewpoint
will become the new norm. But what does he expect will happen to all
those `episodic creationists'. Will they all just die out, or will they become
`evolutionary creationists'? The latter is unlikely, given Howard's attacks on
them. So is Howard hoping for an extinction of most of "contemporary
Christianity", with the survival only his tiny band of `evolutionary
creationists'?
But, unfortunately for Howard's hopes, this `episodic creationist' viewpoint
has shown no sign of declining, despite decades of State-enforced
indoctrination in scientific materialism-naturalism at schools and
universities, so Howard's claim that it "has outlived its usefullness" has no
basis in reality.
Down through the centuries, religious liberals have declared that various
aspects of Christianity that didn't fit in with their naturalistic
presuppositions had "outlived its usefullness" but they have been proved
wrong, every time.
The evidence is that what Howard calls 'episodic creationist' will be around
as a majority position in Christianity as long as Genesis 1 is read by
ordinary Christians, so Howard better get used to the idea!
>SJ>"And the reason they are is not because of any "need for a succession
>of episodes of irruptive, form-imposing interventions by a Creator" but
>because that is what *Genesis 1* depicts, whether one interprets it
>literally or symbolically."
HVT>Two comments: (1) Most attempts to justify episodic creationism
>scientifically entail arguments for the insufficiency of evolutionary
>processes, which implies the need for those occasional episodes of
>form-imposing divine intervention.
Howard has got this argument back the front. Creationists do not first
believe that "evolutionary processes" are insufficient and then believe in
"episodes of...divine intervention." They *first* believe in "divine
intervention" and then judge that "evolutionary processes" are insufficient.
What Howard does not really understand (probably because with his
naturalistic presuppositions he *cannot* understand) is that if one believes
that God has in fact intervened repeatedly in human history, and one is not
influenced by scientific naturalistic presuppositions that God wouldn't (or
couldn't) intervene in natural history, then "evolutionary processes" really
*do* appear to be insufficient!
HVT>(2) To say that Genesis "depicts" episodes of form-imposing
>intervention...
I make the point here that I was using Howard's own words "form-
imposing" as a point of contact with his argument. I do not believe that
"form-imposing" are the right words to use in describing God's giving form
to His creation. God doesn't need to *impose* his will on His creation-He
made it so that it would respond obediently.
HVT>...requires the prior assumption that it is a succinct *chronicle* of
>the Creation's formational history--that it must be read as a 'what
>happened when' account.
This is false, but it is revealing in that it shows Howard really still thinks of
all `episodic creationists' as Biblical literalists, who think Genesis 1 is a
"*chronicle*". He ignores that I added "...or symbolically."
The fact is that Genesis 1, if it is going to be taken seriously at all, does
depict God as creating the raw materials of the universe out of nothing, and
then repeatedly intervening in "successive waves of Creation" through
existing materials and processes, to form and fill that creation.
HVT>I don't see it as a chronicle at all. I see it as 'storied theology' -- a
>common Ancient Near Eastern story form employed to answer the
>question, Who is this God who comes to covenant with Israel? Answer:
>He is the One who gave being to "the heavens and the earth."
This is just speculation. But even if it were true, Genesis 1 says a lot more
than that. It also gives a picture of *how* this "One...gave being to "the
heavens and the earth." Howard thinks this *how* is unimportant because
he thinks that modern science (particularly Darwinism) already tells him
how. Howard has bought the materialist-naturalist creation story and
therefore he doesn't need God's version.
>SJ>"Even the Darwinist philosopher Daniel Dennett recognises that
>Genesis 1 depicts God creating in "successive waves of Creation" and
>contrasts this with Darwin's non-interventionist view: [quotation]
HVT>Sorry, I do not take Danniel Dennett as an authority on matters of
>biblical interpretation.
This is a cheap shot and Howard knows it. I did not say that Dennett was
"an authority on matters of biblical interpretation." My point was that even
Dennett, a Darwinist and an atheist, recognises what everyone else but
Howard's ilk does, that Genesis 1 depicts God as interventionist and
contrasts this with the Darwinian non-interventionist view.
Howard should frankly admit that he holds basically the same
noninterventionist view as Dennett over and against Genesis 1's
interventionist view.
>SJ>"Now it is one thing for Howard to prefer Darwin's non-intervention
>pattern, but it is quite another for him to level pejorative epithets against
>the vast majority of his fellow Christians because they prefer to be faithful
>to Genesis 1's frankly episodic and interventionist pattern."
HVT>(1) As I indicated above, there is nothing inherently pejorative about
>the 'episodic creationist' label.
See above. This is belied by the other labels that Howard associates with
'episodic creationist' like "irruptive, form-imposing" and "outlived its
usefullness", etc.
HVT>(2)I belive that being "faithful to Genesis 1" entails a candid
>acknowledgement of the way in which it employs the literary forms and
>conceptual vocabulary of the Ancient Near East.
I have no problem with studying "the literary forms and conceptual
vocabulary of the Ancient Near East." But I do have a problem with
assuming that Genesis 1 is just another ANE creation story.
I suspect strongly that at the end of the day one Howard would select those
"literary forms and conceptual vocabulary of the Ancient Near East" which
supported his need to downgrade Genesis 1 to just another ANE story, in
order to keep his prior commitment to his Darwinian non-interventionist
views.
Indeed, this can be seen is Howard's choice some of the writings of
Augustine and Basil to support his non-interventionist prior commitment,
even when theological scholars like Jonathan Wells (who also is a
developmental biologist) point out that Howard is misreading Augustine
and Basil (see Wells J., "Abusing Theology: Howard Van Till's `Forgotten
Doctrine of Creation's Functional Integrity,'" Origins & Design: Access
Research Network, Vol. 19 No. 1, Summer 1998.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od191/abusingtheology191.htm).
HVT>SJ, on my suggestion that ID is based on the artisan metaphor:
SJ>"This sweeping generalisation of Howard's is also pejorative, in that it
>tries to characterise ID as having a limited concept of design which is
>based on a single metaphor. No ID theorist that I know of claims that
>"`design' is *based* on the artisan metaphor"."
HVT>I stand by my position because of the way in which most proponents
>of ID have tightly coupled the concepts of *purposeful conceptualization*
>and *assembly by extranatural agent action.*
That "most proponents of ID" do indeed "have tightly coupled the
concepts of *purposeful conceptualization* and" what Howard calls
"*assembly by extranatural agent action", does not entail that it is "based on
the artisan metaphor". The fact is that IDers use other metaphors (eg. see
below Dembski's metaphor of the Designer as a lute-maker/player).
Indeed, most IDers tend to hold to "assembly by extranatural agent action"
but they only do this because of: 1. the lack of participation by non-
interventionists in the ID movement; and 2. the overt hostility (which all
IDers have felt-including me) from non-interventionists, who seem
anything but committed to ID.
This genuine commitment to ID (at least to see if it is true) is a prerequisite
to joining the ID movement. No intellectual movement can tolerate fifth-
columnists in its ranks.
But IDers have not *absolutely* "coupled the concepts of purposeful
conceptualization and assembly by extranatural agent action." Leading ID
theorists like Bill Dembski (see below) have conceded that "The question
of intervention vs. fully-gifted creation thus remains an open question
within the intelligent design movement."
If Howard wants to make the case for non-intervention *within* the ID
movement, he is free to do so, but he must first show that he really wants
to be a part of the ID movement, ie. that he is committed to ID's
advancement, not its destruction. To do this, he must accept that ID does
not rule out "intervention" while he makes the case for "fully-gifted
creation". Above all, he must make his case with well-reasoned arguments,
without making pejorative comments about his fellow IDers.
HVT>My proposal is to distinguish clearly: (1) the action of a mind (or a
>Mind) in the conceptualization of something for the accomplishment of a
>purpose, from (2) the action of hands (or their divine equivalent) in the
>assembly of something from extant materials or components.
This sounds fine. But what Howard *really* wants to do is evident from
what actually does. He not only wants to "distinguish" the
"conceptualization" from the "action", he appears to wants *sever* the
"conceptualization" from the "action", or at least rule out one major model
of the action, ie. intervention!
Leaders in the ID movement perceive Howard's *real* aim as trying to shut
down discussion on what Howard calls "the action of hands (or their divine
equivalent) in the assembly of something from extant materials or
components."
Howard thus is seen not just as a non-interventionist (ie. one who believes
that God might have intervened in natural history but probably didn't); but
as really an *anti*-interventionist (ie. one who believes that God didn't, or
couldn't, intervene in natural history).
HVT>When the concepts of 'purposeful conceptualization' and
>'extranatural assembly' become clearly distinguished from one another so
>that arguments for each can be be conducted on its own merits the
>evaluation of ID can become a fruitful exercise.
See above. Howard has shown by his words and his deeds, that he *really*
does not want "ID" to "become a fruitful exercise."
History teaches that the flow of history will just go around the Howard
Van Till's of this world who are clinging to a outmoded scientific
orthodoxy that has its origins in the 19th century. ID is destined to become
a potent force in the 21st century, but like all intellectual revolutions it is
strongly opposed by those who have a heavy investment in the existing
system.
ID does not preclude that the Designer might have worked 100% non-
interventionally through existing materials and natural processes. But
neither does it rule out that the Designer might have worked 100%
interventionally ex-nihilo, or all points in between. This is clear from one of
Bill Dembski's messages to Howard on the ASA Reflector at
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199904/0178.html:
BD>In saying that intelligent design is compatible with a fully-gifted
>creation, I'm not saying that intelligent design requires a fully-gifted
>creation. A watch that never needs to be wound is a fully-gifted watch
>and better than one that needs to be wound. But a musical instrument,
>like a piano, does not become fully-gifted by being transformed into a
>player-piano. Gregory of Nazianzus, a church father of the 4th century,
>made a design argument in which God was compared to a lutemaker and
>the world to a lute. Lutes by their constitution and structure show clear
>evidence of design. But their design is not less perfect because they
>require a luteplayer, who in Gregory's analogy is God. The question of
>intervention vs. fully-gifted creation thus remains an open question within
>the intelligent design movement.
But what Howard really wants is to rule out in advance, without even
looking at the evidence, any alternatives to his claim that the Designer
*only* worked 100% non-interventionally through existing materials and
natural processes.
As a `concluding unscientific postscript', There is no doubt in the mind of
this "fool for Christ's sake" (1Cor 4:10), that the living Lord of history has
raised up leaders like Phil Johnson and Mike Behe to bear prophetic
witness to society and to the Church in these last days. However, like all
the prophets down through the ages, they are resisted and even attacked by
those who have worked hard to gain a comfortable niche in this world's
secular and ecclesiastic systems. But down through the millennia, those
who gladly heard the prophets turned out to be the right judges of history's
flow, and those who rejected them turned out to be left in a backwater (or
worse).
I call upon those TEs/ECs who are open to the possibility that God
*might* have chosen not to work 100% non-interventionally (ie. He might
have chosen to work wholly or partly intervenentionally), to join the ID
movement as genuine participators in this exciting scientific research
program for the 21st century.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------