RE: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

David,

If you would pardon me being a buttinski on your conversation, my response
to "why is theology not the foundation of our epistemology " is simply
because that is how we got a flat earth, a geocentric universe and Ken Ham
and some would even say ID.

I think that is one of the lessons of ID, we need to let science be the
foundation of examining our natural world but I agree with Mike that it
doesn't have to mean a "reason over faith" battle. Let the science reveal
whatever it tells us and we go from there. We don't need to force fit it to
anything to defend God. In fact, all these attempts to twist science are not
about defending God or faith at all, its about defending a particular
interpretation of the Bible.

In contrast, one of the distinct contributions of RTB I feel is that they
point out that Christianity is the only religion that makes truth claims
that can survive modern day scientific scrutiny, so that makes science an
ally of the Christian faith and the gospel message. And that is something
that distinguishes Christianity from the other religions and completes the
last step of the journey for those that come to theism from natural
revelation. That is why we need to liberate science and use it
synergistically with faith rather than trying to keep it in check like
throughout most of our church history even up until today.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:33 PM
To: philtill@aol.com
Cc: rich.blinne@gmail.com; steven.dale.martin@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re:
[asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

Phil said: So we press on in the reductionist program as far as we can go,
and we don't worry what lies beyond the limits of reductionism nor how it
may affect the limits of theology.

But this is what bothers me. Why is theology secondary to the "reductionist
program?" Why is theology not primary to our epistemology in some sense?
Indeed, as John Milbank contends (with strong adjuncts in the Reformed
tradition), why is theology not the foundation of our epistemology? This is
one of the broader things that bothers me about evangelicals and TE. It
seems that a sort of positivistic reductionism governed by the heuristic of
evolution is the unexamined epistemic foundation for the current version of
this program, rather than God and His revelation in Christ, in the Word, and
in the world.

On Nov 30, 2007 3:42 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

Also, I contend as I always have that Godel's proofs have given us an
amazing insight into the limits of reductionism in physics. Reductionism
sees physics as acting in the mode of a Turing machine that operates upon a
finite set of axioms or initial conditions of reality. The goal of
reductionism is to identify those initial conditions and to identify the
physical laws that constitute the Turing machine. But a Turing machine
operating upon a finite set of axioms is exactly where Godel's proof applies
(assuming that the axioms are at least complex enough to produce an
arithmetic, and indeed arithmetic does appear to be a part of nature since
we can count electrons, for example).

So, if the present course of scientific reductionism is working with a
correct view of nature, then Godel's proof applies to nature. Note that I'm
not saying it applies to our understanding of nature or to science, which is
an epistemological question, but that it applies to nature directly, which
is an ontological question. Nature itself cannot be complete and cannot
ensure its own internal logical consistency -- its own being -- if it were
the sort of thing that could comply with the reductionist program in physics
all the way to the end. Hence, reductio ad absurdum, the reductionist
program in physics cannot be ultimately successful. At some point prior to
explaining everything, reductionism stops. There must be an infinite number
of axioms required to describe nature, _and_ there must have been an
uncountable number of computations performed outside of the Turing machine
processes of physics in order to obtain a set of axioms that will be
internally consistent. But this assumes something exists outside the Turing
machine of nature to perform the computations, which cannot be treated by
scientific reductionism.

So if ultimate reductionism is not possible, then the whole process David
outlines must break down at some point. But we don't know what that point
is. So we press on in the reductionist program as far as we can go, and we
don't worry what lies beyond the limits of reductionism nor how it may
affect the limits of theology. We don't yet know what those limits are, and
whatever lies beyond them will probably be outside the purview of science as
long as we live in this universe, unless some alternative to reductionism
can be devised, or unless we find some way to describe nature that does not
operate as a Turing machine.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
To: David Opderbeck < <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: "Hidden" Theological Issues with Theistic Evolution (was Re:
[asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More")

On 11/29/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

Steve said: And even if Natural selection *may* have *some* explanatory
power for levels above biology, I don't think that necessarily means we are
being reductionist.

Yes, I agree, and I'm ok with that notion. But what I wonder is whether
this is really being consistent in how TE's, at least evangelical TE's,
approach the science. Isn't the truly consistent view to swallow the whole
package? Maybe another way to put it is, why posit a "gap" in evolution at
the level of the human mind / soul? Isn't that imposing an a priori
theological view, drawn from special revelation, onto the science?

I don't think it is necessary to swallow the whole package. If you compare
and constrast the TE's gap with ID's gap the one thing that sticks out is
the TE's gap is immaterial and thus beyond the explanatory capabilities of
science. It is possible to get reductionistic here like Descartes did who
said the place where the soul and body merge is the Pineal Gland (because it
formed a point and thus appealed to Descartes' reductionism.) But, I don't
believe reductionism is necessary and given the anthropology found in
Scripture if you find that you are being reductionistic that should be a
warning sign that your variety of TE may be on the wrong track. To do so is
to as the saying goes is a foolish consistency and is thus the hobgoblin of
little minds.

One other thing that differentiates the two gaps is one is an argument from
silence while the other one is based on a positive statement of Scripture.
Gaps are not per se the problem with ID but rather the argument from
silence. We should oppose something merely because there are "gaps" -- and I
am afraid Collins does this while not seeing his own "gaps". If you believe
in First Causes like evangelicals do, then there will be gaps. But, because
there are also Second Causes some apparent gaps are not really so. If
Scripture posits supernatural causation for something -- like it does for
the creation of the human soul -- then you are more likely to be correct
about your gap then if it does not.

Rich Blinne (member ASA)

  _____

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=ao
lcmp00050000000003> !

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 30 16:49:39 2007