David Campbell wrote:
> >David C. writes:
> >>That would be a valid point, if he did not go beyond it. However, two
> >>invalid points are added. First is making the claim that nature definitely
> >>did not do it on its own. Although the picture is by no means complete,
> >>the gaps have consistently narrowed, so that macroevolution sensu Johnson,
> >>etc. is plausible. The purported gaps in common ancestry invoked by
> >>Johnson, etc. tend not to reflect paleontological reality.
> >
> >Until we have a smooth and continuous genetic trajectory without viability
> >gaps,
> >then "plausible" just means "I can imagine it". But conceivability is not a
> >good
> >guide to possibility, especially when we have barely scratched the surface of
> >what
> >it is that needs to be conceived. Moreover, the problems of generating
> >irreducible
> >complexity (IC) and specified complex information (SPI) have not been solved.
> >These are some of the reasons Johnson makes the positive claim. Of course we
> >may
> >discover natural explanations for the generation of IC and SPI, but in the mean
> >time, these features lend some support to Johnson's claim.
>
> Actually, I mean plausible as seems likely to me. Of course, that does not
> carry significantly more weight.
>
> The problem of generating IC or SPI will seem more serious to non-ID folks
> if it can be shown that they exist in nature. Neither the definition nor
> the detection of these is adequately clarified to be very useful. There
> has been progress in developing evolutionary models for the origin of
> several complex biochemical systems, despite our rather rudimentary
> knowledge of their working and the nearly nonexistent fossil record of
> biochemical systems. This suggests that drawing a line and declaring that
> scientific discovery will not pass it is unwise. Saying that you do or do
> not think it will happen is certainly reasonable; that it cannot is the
> error.
>
> >>The more serious error is identifying macroevolution sensu Johnson as
> >>disproof of God. A Christian viewpoint requires that nature achieving
> >>things on its own is actually God using means to achieve his purposes
> >>rather than true independance. Being omniscient and omnipotent, He could
> >>create things any way He liked. It is this theological error that is most
> >>disturbing about his claims and their widespread warm reception.
> >
> >Concerning theology, if denying omniscience and omnipotence is heresy, then so
> >is
> >embracing deism. Clearly there are legitimate theological concerns on both
> >sides
> >of the table. Claiming that God acted where He didn't, or denying that God
> >acted
> >where He did are both errors. I agree with your point; macroevolution is not
> >disproof of God. However, the statement "nature achieving things on her own is
> >actually God using means to achieve his purposes" is a contradiction. Either
> >nature is not achieving things on her own, or she is achieving things on her
> >own.
> >If the former, then God is doing it, not nature. If the latter, then nature is
> >doing it, not God. If God and nature are both involved, then they must have
> >different roles. They can't both be doing the same thing in the same sense, for
> >that would entail that they were the same thing, and that too is a heresy to be
> >avoided (pantheism). To say that God does everything (and that therefore nature
> >has no causal role) is (in my view) to deny the doctrine of creation.
> >Theological
> >pitfalls indeed abound.
>
> I was uncertain whether you meant nature achieving things on its own as
> physically or theologically descriptive. The existence of nature, much
> less anything happening, depends on God maintaining it. Depending on your
> Calvinist or Armenian leanings, you may think of God as causing or allowing
> events, but they are not independent of Him. It is important to maintain
> the distinction between creation and the Creator, as you note. Nature is
> the proximal cause for most events, but God is the ultimate cause. "God,
> in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, but is free..."
> (Westminster Confession of Faith).
> Deism asserts that god is not currently involved in things, having wound
> nature up and left. This is also the implication of Johnson's claims that
> macroevolution disproves God, except that Johnson has him coming back to
> rewind frequently.
>
> David C.
David,
Overall, I agree with what you say. However, I would like to see the quotation where
Johnson says "Macroevolution disproves God". Johnson is (I believe) a presbyterian
in the PCA, which, last time I checked, was a rather conservative organization, and
fully behind the WCF and the doctrine of providence in particular. I can't imagine
that Johnson does not adhere to the doctrine of providence. Therefore, it seems
quite unfair to Johnson to claim that his position viz-a-viz macroevolution implies
deism-except-for-interruptions. A more charitable interpretation of Johnson is this.
He upholds to the doctrine of providence, and second-causes whereby God sustains and
governs His creation. But he also believes that the powers that God has given to
created entities are limited according to the nature of those entities. A
normal-sized ant cannot pull a train because such a task requires more power than
accompanies its God-given, God-sustained and God-governed nature. For this reason,
for an ant to pull a train requires direct (i.e. immediate) divine action. Likewise,
claims Johnson, there are some gaps in the evolutionary process that require more
than what the natural powers of created entities can accomplish. Hence direct divine
action is necessary to fill those gaps. Whether Johnson is right or wrong about the
need for direct divine action to cross these gaps (and whether these gaps really
exist), his position need not be (unfairly) construed as implying deism with
interruptions.
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 14:57:45 EDT