Re: [asa] a theological exercise

David, what would the conversation look like if we substituted "embryology" for "evolution" in the statements below? Has Murphy or Plantinga or Del Ratzsch or anyone else done any solid work on that other TE, namely "theistic embryology"? Given the clear implications of Psalm 139, is it not clear that we need to give an account (as developmental biologists) for why we do not incorporate Scripture into our theorizing about the mysterious origins of the human form during the first 50 days following fertilization? How does God interact with his creation during human embryonic development?

This may sound like sarcasm, but it's not. In my opinion, the unique focus on evolutionary biology in conversations about "God's action" is highly suspicious. I am completely unconvinced that the real questions, the real concerns, the real "dilemmas" have ANYTHING to do with "God's interaction with Nature." They are all questions about OUR interaction with SCRIPTURE, which seems to provide a historical narrative of creation and fall that is (apparently) out of sync with the narratives of geology and evolutionary science. Questions about God's interaction with creation are interesting and important, of course. But you ought to be suspicious when people start waxing philosophical about "God's interaction with Nature" in the context of evolution, then turn back to their calculators and microscopes when the subject drifts back to chemistry, mechanics, embryology, or pathology. Where's the theistic embryology? The theistic epidemiology? In my view, these conversations are!
  seen to be incoherent when the complete context of science is included.

Murphy's arguments, even if they're airtight, are dramatically weakened, in my view, by the simple consideration of how they sound when applied to other areas of scientific inquiry. Until I see a chapter called "Science, Divine Action, and Plate Tectonics" I'll be unconvinced that the conversation is entirely honest.

Steve Matheson
 
>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 06/04/08 12:05 PM >>>
Steve said: you must B) explain how it is that evolutionary theory is
unique in raising questions about God's interaction with creation.

I respond: how about this from Nancey Murphy's chapter, "Science, Divine
Action, and the ID Movement," in "Intelligent Design: William Dembski and
Michael Ruse in Dialogue":

Murphy says, "The problem for TE ... is that it is an unstable category. If
evolution is unguided, the position collapses into immanentism; if guided,
it collapses into PC [progressive creationism]. In the latter case, if it
shares the same space on the spectrum as ID, then one wonders what the
disagreements are about."

Murphy suggests that the choice between immanentism and interventionism "is
of fundamental importance in determining [liberal vs. conservative] views on
theological method and Scripture: immanentism requires an experiential
foundation for theology, since scriptural foundationalism is dependent upon
an interventionist view of revelation. One's view of revelation in turn
affects one's theory of religious language and the positions available
regarding the relations between science and religion."

Murphy concludes by trying to bridge this gap (if you've read much Nancey
Murphy, you'll know that finding a way forward between liberal and
conservative theology is one of her overriding projects) by referring to
quantum divine action: "God's governance consists in determining the
otherwise indeterminate processes -- actualizing one of the potentials of
the system in question. This is no violation of natural laws because a
statistical law is not, strictly speaking, a law; it is a generalization
that does not forbid any particular event."

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> None of that is relevant to my point. You seem to believe that questions
> about God's interaction with "Nature" constitute a "dilemma" for "any
> Christian seriously interested in studying evolutionary theory."
> Differences between Newtonian models and evolutionary theory are immaterial
> to the subject at hand. (And you notably ignored human disease.)
>
> For your claim to make sense, you must either A) acknowledge that all
> scientific theories -- indeed all of science itself -- face the same
> "dilemma", or you must B) explain how it is that evolutionary theory is
> unique in raising questions about God's interaction with creation.
>
> A, of course, is correct, and your original assertion is seen to be
> misleading in that it suggests that evolutionary theory, as opposed to other
> areas of scientific inquiry or explanation, is distinctively naturalistic.
> This kind of error is, I'll grant, all too common, but it's the kind of
> error that is particularly discouraging when repeated on the ASA listserv,
> which is one corner of cyberspace where people ought to be expected to know
> better.
>
> Steve Matheson
>
> >>> "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> 06/04/08 10:35 AM >>>
> Newtonian theory is a mathematical model, sort of a mental toy. The
> surprising thing is that Newtonian model, which is not the real thing; it
> can make predictions about the real thing. Such is not the case with
> evolutionary theory, which is not a closed, specific model but has no
> bounds, and some consider it all encompassing.
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Stephen Matheson [mailto:smatheso@calvin.edu]
> Sent: Tue 6/3/2008 5:25 PM
> To: ASA list; George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad
> Subject: RE: [asa] a theological exercise
>
>
>
> That "dilemma" is universal to science. It is no more a "dilemma" for
> evolutionary theory than it is for Newtonian mechanics or for the study of
> human disease. To suggest otherwise is, in my view, completely incoherent.
> Steve Matheson
>
> >>> "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> 06/03/08 2:34 PM >>>
> First, do we know if God interacts with His creation? If God does interact
> with Nature, then how does He do it and can we scientifically detect such
> interactions. Here is the dilemma that any Christian seriously interested
> in studying evolutionary theory must eventually confront first.
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of George Murphy
> Sent: Tue 6/3/2008 2:07 PM
> To: ASA list
> Subject: [asa] a theological exercise
>
>
> The first book we were assigned when I started seminary was a small volume
> by Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians. I'd like to
> propose here what I think is an important little exercise for Christians,
> young & old, who want to engage in theology-science discussions, &
> especially those relating to evolution.
>
> Let me begin with a scientific preliminary. One of the tasks of a
> scientist, & especially a theoreticians, is to try to see how well some new
> discovery fits in with what he/she has up until that point regarded as the
> best theory in the relevant field. E.g., are the data generated when a new
> particle accelerator comes on line consistent with current theories of high
> energy physics? If they are consistent without any tinkering with the
> theory then they can be regarded as predictions of noverl facts by that
> theory. Perhaps some relatively minor adjustments of secondary aspects of
> the theory are required. Or maybe there's just no natural way in which the
> new data can be understood within the theory's framework - in which case all
> but diehards will decide that a new theoretical framework is needed.
>
> OK, assume now that somehow - & "how" is not something I want to debate now
> - it has been demonstrated scientifically, beyond any reasonable doubt, that
> present-day human beings have descended from pre-human ancestors without any
> unexplained gaps - physical or mental - in the process. (Some might claim
> that that's already been done but again that isn't the point now.) The
> exercise is to see how well this could fit in with your theology - with the
> way that you understand God, creation, sin, salvation and other aspects of
> the faith. Does the evolutionary reality flow naturally from your theology,
> does that theology require some modification in its secondary aspects, or is
> there just no way to make human evolution part of your theology without
> changing it (the theology) totally? A really serious effort should be made
> to accomplish the task in some detail. It need not produce a dissertation
> but has to be more elaborate than "Evolution is how God creates" or "The
> Bible rules!
>
> out evolution."
>
> & now the point of the exercise. Only a Christian has honestly tried to do
> this - not necessarily succeeded but tried - has any business criticizing
> the views of Christians who do accept human evolution.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.