RE: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

Thanks for this discussion! It is quite helpful in clarifying what TE & DE are and what divine causation/effective-ness does/might and does not/might not consist of/in.

  One thing I didn't quite follow, what is the PN that Dave refers to - is it not 'philosophical naturalism'?
   
  "It is vital to recognize that MN is compatible with DE, TE and philosophical naturalism, not identical with PN as IDers like Phil claim." - D. Siemens

  g.a.
   
  p.s. A curiosity about the title of the thread: is it possible to be a 'combatant' in a 'culture war' when you don't live in the culture that is apparently at war (with itself)?
   
   
  Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
        
    st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } 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
  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?

                
---------------------------------
Enrich your life at Yahoo! Canada Finance
Received on Sat Mar 4 19:39:28 2006