Thank you Douglas, for your post. We are surely in agreement on what seems to me the main point in your message: "there are all kinds of ways to think about process issues without adopting what is known as Process Theology." Hopefully my messages were not interpreted as suggesting that process thought, TE/EC and PT are or should be conflated. I guess I am less influenced by process theology and certainly less familiar with it than most on the ASA list. I just don't see how someone can commit to an evolutionary framework without committing themselves to one form or another of process thought (i.e. in one sense, that the notion of 'origins' are marginalised from such discussion - finding balance being a key issue).
It helps me to read the messages about PT, especially Ted's comments, because it seems to be not often discussed here (perhaps, as someone said, since few people at ASA embrace it). However, I still don't feel my question has been answered about the prospect of TE/EC existing without some idea of process (i.e. the suggested possibility of non-process evolution) or what the clear relationship is between TE and process thought (i.e. not just process theology - PT). Anyone who would be willing to enlighten me about this, I'd greatly appreciate it. The thread seems to have turned into a criticism of PT.
The notion that our Lord 'evolves' things through natural processes seems to me a rather strange way of saying what is meant. I am not against what is meant by this (especially after recently reading the contribution of Craig Rusbult to the ASA site: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-cr.htm#i) because TE leaves room, creates space, opens a door to, speaks apologetically about the 'intervention' of God or more soflty, of God's guidance, i.e. it does not pander to the well-stocked ranks of scientific materialists and atheistic evolutionists, choosing instead to be the product of scientifically-minded theists who accept biological (and perhaps even cosmological) evolution without falling into the trap of evolutionary ethics, sociobiology or now evolutionary psychology. Still, I see no reason to duplicate Darwin and Wallace's foggy metaphor-duo of 'natural selection' (which Darwin admitted in his autobiography was messy) with the duo of 'theistic evolution.' Both
ascribe to actions/events which appear to stretch the original meanings of theism and evolutionary biology out of proportion (e.g. divine action is not [as you all will agree] ruled by biology!!). EC, in contrast to TE, places focus on the sovereignty of creation, which the ASA has even made a statement affirming that it believes in creation!
Sure, for those who've included TE/EC in their expressive language, it will be hard to change their minds. However, perhaps by listening to a human-social scientist's perspective on the absurdity of 'evolution' when applied to the human sphere that involves intentionality, choice, decision-making and free will, an alternative view than evolution = Total Evolution (in Rusbult's terms) or 'universal evolutionism' (in my words), will seem important even for natural scientists to contemplate. Sure, human decision-making and choice go through 'processes,' but to me the originality of creativity trumps the 'evolution' metaphor almost entirely. We are after all more than just biological creatures. In the theological realm, the issue of losing origins to processes may be a dire problem today!
Perhaps it is better to let a renowned sociologist speak about this than to fumble with my own words:
“The sensory world is in a state of incessant flux and becoming. There is nothing unchangeable in it – not even an eternal Supreme Being. Mind dominated by the truth of the senses simply cannot perceive any permanency, but apprehends all values in terms of shift and transformation. Sensate mentality views everything from the standpoint of evolution and progress. This leads to an increasing neglect of the eternal values, which come to be replaced by temporary, or short-time, considerations.” - Pitirim Sorokin (The Crisis of our Age, 1941)
Sorokin became the first chair of Sociology at Harvard University in 1931 and was later elected president of the American Sociological Association, not long before his death. In his unique way, he tried to rescue sociological thought from dependence on quantitative, empirical methodology, copying the realm of natural science, wherein purpose and meaning are nowhere to be found. Sorokin viewed evolutionary process thought as a direct challenge to theism.
“The standpoint of ‘origin and development and evolution’ is our main standpoint in studying anything, from religion to the stock market. It has rooted itself in our mind so deeply that many of us cannot even conceive of any other – nonhistorical, or nonevolutionary, or nondevelopmental - approach to the study of any phenomenon.” – Sorokin (Social and Cultural Dynamics, 1937-42)
It has been my challenge to ASA as a human-social thinker, to identify that 'supernatural' is not the only opposite or alternative to 'natural' (while still taking into account the theological distinction between Creator and created), that society, culture, personality, economy, et al. are legitimate counter-concepts in which the idea of 'evolutionary process' has also deeply permeated, perhaps wrongly, play a closer and deeper connection with the field of theology than should evolutionary biology. So in one sense, I'm contending that the field 'philosophy of science' has got itself a bit backwards in focussing on natural science instead of human-social science and in another, that evolutionary process thought is actually more significant and influential in human-social thought (and here is the climax for American thinkers) and what is MOST problematic in the minds of most Americans. They would accept 'evolution' if it was merely in biology or other natural sciences
(though, perhaps my trust in the average American is a bit naive, to think that if one could separate the legitimate 'science' from the illegitimate speculation, e.g. evolutionary psychology and sociology, cultural selection theory, etc.) rather than a kind of 'Total Evolution' which disqualified, as Sorokin notes, anything unchangeable in it, "even an eternal Supreme Being." Sorokin dealt specifically with A. Comte's pre-Darwian recognition of the importance of both statics and dynamics, as features of human-social life.
I guess since in my field Darwin's ideas (i.e. his published thoughts about human beings, not just about non-human animals and plants or barnacles) have been so abused (see Steve Martin's blog on 'evolutionary psychology') that I am less willing to give him credit for other things such as simply recognising that process is a feature of (*the*) creation. For example, one could go back to Heraclitus to discover that 'everything changes,' that life is in flux. Perhaps one could argue in favour of Darwin's contribution to natural-physical science (which it seems TE is aptly prone to do), but in terms of human-social thought, his contribution is a disease that TEs in their acceptance of 'Total Evolution,' supplemented by the early 20th century phenomena of 'process philosophy' (cf. Whitehead) does nothing to challenge.
The notion that 'God's standards have changed over time' (Douglas H.) likewise seems a bit anthropomorphic to me. That is, perhaps it is how we are interpreting those 'standards' rather than the actual standards themselves. Yet, I do see the point of acknowledging processes - I am not anti-process! - but allowing process to dictate the terms of discussion is potentially dangerous. The inclusion of 'process' in theology surely makes sense (why thinkers of the past excluded it, Ted's historical perspective can surely help to illustrate). Yet, it seems to me the inclusion of 'evolution' clouds the issue rather than clarifying it if only because of the wide-range of meanings that evolution (surely including naturalistic-physicalistic-atheistic) contains. On the opposite extreme of over-focussing on processes, however, is over-focussing on origins, which is equally disequlibrium.
So my earlier question still humbly remains:
"Please, can you or anyone else explain to me how a person can accept the notion of 'non-process evolution'? This seems to me a blatant contradiction in terms! Evolution by definition simply must proceed."
Warm regards,
Gregory A.
Douglas Hayworth <haythere.doug@gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory,
The recognition in all areas of science since Darwin (and 18th century geology) that process is a real feature of the creation means that we must either bury our heads in the sand or consider how we should adjust our thinking (philosophically and theologically). The Christian tradition (especially since Calvin) has emphasized a view of God that is so transcendent that it is difficult to find a way to envision how that kind of God could truly interact with a creation that was created with process in-built.
I suggest that you read the 1994 book "The Openness of God" by Pinnock and others. They review this church history and argue strongly for an openness view of God that is Evangelical and not at all Process Theology. Pinnock and others acknowledge that it is the recognition of the fact of evolution (read process in the most general sense) as a real feature of the created order that opened the lid on the "neat and tidy" traditional views on these points.
Personally, an openness to the fact of process in creation (both physically and with regard to God's plan and purpose in human history) has helped me understand things in scripture that seem very odd otherwise. For example, why does God not rebuke Noah for getting drunk and passing out naked, or Abraham for continually lying, or many other such examples in the OT? It seems that God's standards (expectations for human moral behavior) have changed considerably over time. Maybe this example is very tangential to the current discussion, but it does point out how a serious consideration of reality of "process" in history and human interaction with God is important.
The traditional picture of Adam and Eve as "perfect" in the sense of being "superhuman" and the garden as having "no physical pain or death" just isn't possible to reconcile with the real creation that exists. Our physical universe cannot function that way because it is not structured to do so.
...and there are all kinds of ways to think about process issues without adopting what is known as Process Theology.
Douglas Hayworth
Rockford, IL
---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 2 18:05:45 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 02 2008 - 18:05:45 EST