Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

This thoroughly confuses deistic evolution with theistic evolution. DE
has a hands-off deity after original creation. He created it and let it
rip. TE involves Providence at every step, but notes that science is not
competent to detect divine direction in natural development. MN does not
exclude divine activity, just says that it is not detectable by
observation of ongoing physical events. There are, for those present, a
few exceptions. A container of water that becomes a container of wine is
miraculous--but those not there can claim that the report is legendary.

There are, when comparing Pan and Homo genomes, differences. But how can
anyone determine that a rearrangement, duplication, mutation or other
change was divinely arranged rather than purely accidental? Note also
that TE is compatible with the divine provision of a soul or spirit to an
advanced anthropoid to produce a human being. However, I have not seen
scientific evidence that detects the immaterial in human beings. In my
paper at the Trinity convention, I had to use biblical data.

It is vital to recognize that MN is compatible with DE, TE and
philosophical naturalism, not identical with PN as IDers like Phil claim.
Dave

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 10:27:32 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
The recent discussions on the list about Adam illustrate this well. What
if the only reasonable conclusion from scripture is that Adam was
uniquely created? What MN tells us about the origin of humankind is then
false. So then we say, I suppose, "well that reflects the limits of
'science'." But that's not really so -- it would reflect a conflict
between theology and science, not two spheres of knowledge sharing a
boundary within an encompassing sphere of Truth.

With respect to the particular example of Adam, of course, it's possible
that the Biblical text doesn't require unique creation, and that the TE
narrative is correct. But it seems to me that the TE narrative simply
pushes the conflict between theology and science further back. MN says
we can explain the development of life without any reference to God. A
non-deistic TE position, however, says no, we can't do any such thing.
The Truth in a non-deistic TE view is that God sovereignly directed
evolution. Without this immanent God, there is no universe. The
Biblical narrative of God as an active, involved creator is the Truth,
and evolution is the result of His activity.

So, even if the TE view is correct (and I think I personally lean towards
that view), it doesn't solve the fundamental problem. At some point, TE
has to say that we cannot explain the universe without reference to God.
You can label that statement "theology" and place it in its own sphere,
but that sphere necessarily collides with the sphere of "science"
somewhere down the road if "science" excludes reference to God. We are
still left with the same question: which narrative is True?
Received on Sat Mar 4 13:53:38 2006