RE: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

David wrote:
 
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.
 
No and yes. After the Big Bang, for which we currently have no
commonly-accepted, natural explanation, the rest of cosmological history
can be explained without evoking supernatural causation. Once a pitcher
releases a fast ball (or a curve) he doesn't sustain it until it reaches
the catcher's mitt. It is released into the air and subject to laws of
physics.
 
"Directed" may not be the appropriate word for a TE. That's more in the
ID camp. Being the ultimate first cause of all events does not mean He
is the causer of all events.
 
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org> www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 2:26 PM
To: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Cc: tdavis@messiah.edu; asa@calvin.edu; kbmill@ksu.edu
Subject: 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 16:09:38 2006