Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

*Non-deistic TE positions do not necessarily say that we can't explain the
development of life without reference to God. *
**
Sure they do, but maybe we're using a different understanding of what I mean
by "reference to God." Here is my thinking: If you find a naturalistic
explanation of how life arose, and you still hold a TE position, all you've
done is pushed the "God" question further back. I can't see how you can
hold that Providence directed the evolution of the universe and not also
hold that God *caused* the universe and that the universe is contingent on
His will. If you hold that God caused the universe and the universe is
contingent on His will, the universe cannot exist without Him. The universe
is of necessity then not self-sustaining. Therefore, a strictly
naturalistic explanation of the universe is untrue and inadequate. If a
strictly naturalistic explanation of the universe is untrue and inadequate,
you cannot (truthfully) explain the development of life without reference to
God.
**
*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.*
**
I understand that, and in my discussion I didn't confuse it with deistic
evolution at all. In fact, I highlighted the distinction between TE and
deistic evolution to make my point. The point I tried to make is that the
effort to separate methods from truth claims seems unconvincing and perhaps
counterproductive to me. None of the responses so far addressed the basic
problem: what if scripture compels the conclusion that Adam was specially
created? MN cannot account for that, and thus any narrative about human
origins derived from MN would be false. The MN narrative would not exist
alongside the theological narrative as two different approaches to the same
Truth. The two approaches would be in conflict and not the same Truth.

I guess my thinking thus far is that you can separate MN from philosophical
naturalism in principle, but when the rubber meets the road and we have to
discuss real Truth claims, the distinction fails. Why should we be
interested in explanations of Reality that are not Truthful?

On 3/4/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> 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 14:28:44 2006