Re: Fwd: [asa] a theological exercise

If I'm a "normal evangelical," then evangelicalism is in even bigger trouble
than most people think. (I hate labels, but I might identify as a
"progressive evangelical," though I won't do that because progressive
evangelicals hate labels).

Actually, someone has written a book something like what you're describing:
Vern Poythress, "Redeeming Science." It's an excellent read, which allows
BTW that evolution might be the means by which God created -- a big
allowance for a WTS prof. It also discusses what a "Christian" / redemptive
approach to various branches of science might look like. Very Kuyperian of
course -- "every square inch is mine" -- and also kind of Van Tilian.

I agree that "evolution" isn't the only source of tension with the question
of divine action in creation. The question is bigger -- after Darwin
*and*after Einstein, we understand the universe to be probabilistic
rather than
deterministic. How do we understand divine action when Nature is
stochastic? Obviously, biological evolution is a prototypical example of
the indeterminacy of nature. Moreover biological evolution ostensibly
produced us -- beings who thing we have "minds" and "wills" that allow us to
act in the universe with some degree of determinacy. So, biological
evolution is a key aspect of nature that requires careful thought about
divine action.

In addition, you said this: the supremely important and interesting study
of the nature and philosophy of science is being abused by Christians who
see it as a useful weapon against evolutionary theory, which questions the
details of our central narrative

To which I respond: I wouldn't characterize the study of the nature and
philosophy of science as "supremely important." Only one thing can be
"supremely" important IMHO, and that is God and how we relate to him. How
we construct a philosophy of science has to flow down from that first order
commitment. And our first order commitment tells us that our "central
narrative" is true. Our central narrative is what we construct all our
other narratives around. There is no external foundation -- not empiricism
and not human reason -- from which to critique our central narrative in
order to accommodate other narratives.

I see Del Ratzsch as trying to construct a narrative of "science" that flows
from the central Christian narrative. I don't see him as pragmatically
using POS as a weapon against evolutionary theory. Would you agree? Even
more so is this the case with Nancey Murphy, who so far as I know accepts
biological evolution, including human evolution, completely.

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> David--
>
> You and your fellow congregants sound like pretty normal evangelicals. I
> and my colleagues and friends would all agree with you. But why haven't any
> of us written this:
>
> "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 human embryology must eventually confront first."
>
> or this:
>
> "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 epidemiology must eventually confront first."
>
> David, those who believe that Psalm 139 tells the truth about God's
> interaction with creation do not therefore worry about whether they ought to
> embrace "theistic embryology." There is no such thing as "theistic
> embryology" in the same sense as there is thought to be "theistic
> evolution." No one has written a chapter like Murphy's about "theistic
> epidemiology." And no one ever will.
>
> Evolution is not targeted by Christians because it raises any *unique*
> questions about God's "interaction" with creation. You've asserted as much
> below, wrt human development. In my opinion, the supremely important and
> interesting study of the nature and philosophy of science is being abused by
> Christians who see it as a useful weapon against evolutionary theory, which
> questions the details of our central narrative. To continue to entertain
> this misleading notion, by constantly linking evolution (biological,
> galactic, whatever), *and not other major scientific theories or views*, to
> questions about God's "interaction" with creation, is to promulgate a
> pernicious and damaging error.
>
> Steve Matheson
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 06/04/08 12:46 PM >>>
> In my local church, we have baby dedication ceremonies (we're baptists, so
> we ironically don't baptize infants). During that ceremony, the pastor
> reads something about how each individual child is a special creation of
> God, not the product of time and chance alone, and we read part of Psalm
> 139. I think that ceremony reflects a "theistic embryology" of a sort, and
> that's its absolutely right. Of course, we're not taking "literally" that
> God knits our physical bodies together in the womb, and we're not denying
> that which sperm fertilizes the egg is a statistically stochastic event.
> Yet we are rejecting a totally naturalistic explanation of the creation of
> the human person. We are affirming that *this* sperm fertilized *this* egg
> and that *this* baby developed to term and was born to *these* parents as a
> result of God's special providence.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > 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/> <
> http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/> <
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>

-- 
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.