Re: [asa] TE/EC Response

No dispute with George here. Both concurrence and cooperation
recognize authentic creaturely action AND divine action as being
involved in every action. A key point is that even though God is
involved in every action of all his creatures, the creature is not
him. And there is no reason to deny that creatures themselves have
abilities.

Some theologians have found some solution to theodicy in this, i.e.
that while the divine action is always present, it can be
distinguished from the creaturely action, although others (say Charles
Hodge) says that it doesn't really help and merely multiplies problem.

TG

On Jul 8, 2009, at 6:30 AM, George Murphy wrote:

> I'm in general agreement with Terry here. Just one comment on #2.
> Yes, concurrence should be understood as "active governance." But
> it's just for that reason that the term "concurrence," which means
> literally "running together," suggests that God merely "goes along
> with" what creatures do. (The German Begleitung, "accompaniment,"
> which Barth, e.g., uses, is similar.) For that reason the other
> term that the tradition has used, "cooperation," is prefereable.
> God "works with" creatures. & for that reason I think that speaking
> of God "not lifting a finger" is quite misleading.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:48 PM
> Subject: [asa] TE/EC Response
>
> > With Cameron and Gregory so eloquently summarizing the state of our
> > recent discussions from their perspective, let me try to provide a
> > similar summary from my perspective.
> >
> > 1. In light of the recent exchange between Cameron and David, it
> seems
> > to me that perhaps the bottom line difference has to doing with how
> > convincing we regard the evidence for a secondary cause based
> > evolutionary account. I fully agree with David's assessment of the
> > state of the art. I would probably go even one step further and say
> > that due to the historical nature of biological evolution and due to
> > contingent nature of some of critical events (chance mutations,
> cross-
> > overs, genome acquisitions, extinctions, etc.) and due to the
> > antiquity of these events, that it may not be possible to construct
> > the kind of detailed scenario that Cameron insists upon. To him, it
> > seems, these sorts of provisos casts a dark cloud over our
> confidence.
> > Others of us (and most professional practicing life scientists) find
> > the current state of affairs to be good enough to assert with
> > confidence appropriate for any scientific theory that the key pieces
> > of the story are in place and convincing enough. I, for one, have
> had
> > that bent since the late 70's and have only seen gaps filled,
> > questions answered, and more and more success of the general
> > evolutionary biological story. The evo-devo developments of the past
> > two decades have addressed in principle in my mind many of the
> > difficult questions that Cameron keeps raising.
> >
> > Perhaps it's a different psychological bent between TE's and ID's.
> > Maybe TE's do have a lower bar. But, Cameron or Denton or Behe is
> not
> > giving me any new information when they tell me how much we don't
> > know. I know full well. Yet, I am convinced of the general story by
> > the evidence that is there. Perhaps there is a difference between
> the
> > way biologists think and the way chemists think. I am trained
> > primarily as a biologist but have straddled the fence with a strong
> > chemistry and biophysics history as well. It is probably the case
> the
> > most non-life scientists take the word of their biologists
> colleagues,
> > but, as I said before, most professional life scientists are
> convinced.
> >
> > If this is the case, then we are at an impasse of sorts. I don't
> > really see a problem with that. I'm convinced; the community of
> > practicing scientists is convinced. That's the way it is. There may
> > come a day when that's not the case and the voices of ID advocates,
> > Denton, et al. will turn the tables. I may someday be convinced
> > otherwise. But today is not that day and I think through the
> > theological implications of my science in light of how the world
> looks
> > to me today. Since Gregory has been so fond of reminding us of the
> > sociology of science, he should not be overly shocked to hear that
> > science is what scientists think (today). May or may not be right.
> In
> > fact, in light of history, it's likely not to be right. However,
> > today, in our science education we teach what we (the scientific
> > community) think is the best explanation for things.
> >
> > What to do? Well, let's keep working: those trying to fill in the
> gaps
> > of the current theoretical framework (science as usual) and the
> > critics (the revolutionaries). The critics have a tougher go at it
> and
> > may find it difficult to get funding, to publish, etc. But that's
> the
> > way it works. Time will tell who is right (if we are realists of any
> > sort, which I am).
> >
> > 2. As for the term "Darwinism". Most of us on the TE/EC side of
> things
> > reject the arguments that Cameron and Gregory and perhaps others
> have
> > put forth that "Darwinism" is intrinsically anti-theistic. To
> think so
> > is a conflation of secondary causes (nature, creation, etc.) with
> > primary causation (God's role) (as David Siemens eloquently put it).
> > Darwin committed that error--Asa Gray answered it in his day.
> Dawkins
> > commits the error today. As does Cameron and most ID folks. To state
> > it boldly: my option #4 is identical to Cameron's option #1 from the
> > secondary causation point of view. Macroevolution does not require
> > miracles--it can all happen "without God lifting a finger"--is that
> > clear enough? (although I unequivocally reject Cameron's way of
> > putting that--concurrence is not merely sustaining the laws of
> nature--
> > it is active governance--micromanaging, if you will). However, from
> > the primary causation point of view evolution is guided (as are all
> > secondary causes, even the actions of free agents). So, I, as most
> > life scientists, think that Darwinism is a scientific idea (and
> not a
> > ideology) embodying the Darwinian mechanisms of "random" mutation
> that
> > does not anticipate the need of the organism, natural selection,
> > gradualism, etc. All of these say nothing about God's role in the
> > process. It seems that in principle Cameron agrees that it's
> possible
> > for divine governance to be "hidden" in stochastic processes, but
> the
> > fact that he can't distinguish between his option #3 and my option
> #4
> > and his belief that improbable sequences of mutations are not
> possible
> > without divine guidance suggest otherwise.
> >
> > 3. This is not to say that God cannot perform a miracle during
> > evolutionary history. I strongly affirm that he is fully able to
> work
> > outside of normal secondary causes and believe that we have several
> > reported events of such in scripture. I don't see any reason to
> appeal
> > to such in the course of cosmic history. In scripture miracles
> seem to
> > be associated with special redemptive and revelatory events. I don't
> > expect to see them normally. In fact, the "normal" (God's regular
> > governance) is a necessary milieu for the miraculous (God's
> irregular
> > governance). Given the historical nature of evolution, I'm not sure
> > how you can tell the difference between a miracle and a God-governed
> > chance event.
> >
> > 4. As for storing up genotypic changes...this is exactly what
> > exaptation does. All the pieces are present already and when they
> are
> > combined something novel emerges which can now be selected upon.
> > Irreducible complexity is no mystery. Gene duplication, sexual
> > recombination, horizontal gene transfer, genome acquistions are all
> > mechanisms that accomplish this. It is true that I am not able to
> come
> > up with the detailed account of how this has happened, but I can
> give
> > credible scenarios that combined with the record in the genomes,
> gives
> > striking confirmation of the theory. And the evidence keeps
> coming...a
> > few weeks ago there was some discussion of the origin of the immune
> > system in Science (including a picture from the Dover trial with a
> > stack of books and papers confounding Behe's claim that there was no
> > theory of the origin of this complex system). It appears that
> > vertebrates got it via some lateral gene transfer in a viral
> > infection. Once the incipient function is there (and it didn't arise
> > gradualistically), Darwinian mechanisms have their fodder. So the
> > modern account involves both Darwinian mechanism and newly
> discovered
> > non-Darwinian mechanism. All the pieces of the eye, even at the
> > biochemical level, are homologs of pieces of other functioning
> > systems. Perhaps an eye evolves in the twinkling of an eye (as
> Dawkins
> > cleverly put it--I guess he knows his Bible even if he doesn't
> believe
> > it).
> >
> > 5. Cameron speaks of the Laplacian universe where God must be the
> most
> > skilled Fats Domino that one can imagine. While I have no trouble
> > imagining that God can do this, I'm not sure I believe it's
> necessary
> > to think this way. While I have a reductionist and mechanist bent, I
> > don't think they work at every level or through every level. All the
> > usually things can be said here--quantum indeterminacy, chaos, etc.
> > But, I don't find it necessary to do that. This is a critique of
> some
> > of my TE/EC colleagues. As under point #2 I don't want to conflate
> > God's role with any particular creational dimension. God can do what
> > he want how he wants. And I don't really think we can explain how
> and
> > where it happens in creaturely terms. If a key mutation occurs
> whether
> > it's via a radiation event that God tweaked to pop out at a certain
> > time (or even specially created) or a spontaneous low probability
> > isomeric transition of a nucleotide at the point of replication. It
> > doesn't bother me that God tweaks. What seems to be the case is that
> > God tweaks in a way that we usually can't tell.
> >
> > 6. Cameron's view that the sequence of evolutionary events seems
> > improbable is an argument for design just is wrong in my opinion.
> I've
> > commented on this before. The probability of the next mutation is
> the
> > same no matter what mutation occurred before it. Relevant to this is
> > Gould's essay about batting average records. There's only one way
> for
> > the distribution to go--similar, he argues, to biological
> complexity.
> >
> > 7. The pattern of evolution or the "fact" of evolution (trees of
> > relatedness from classification or sequence comparisons or Bernie's
> > appeals recently to chromosome fusions, etc) are convincing
> especially
> > in light of known mechanisms of reproduction and inheritance and the
> > kinds of changes that we not only infer but actually do see as we
> > compare sequences from generation to generation. No I don't have the
> > detailed mechanism for how all evolutionary change occurred. Neither
> > have I a detailed mechanism for development from fertilized egg to
> > adult organism. But the pattern is there and there is nothing
> > inconsistent (with my level of credulity) with thinking that it
> > happens without special intervention. Figuring out the mechanism in
> > more detail is part of our task.
> >
> > 8. As for Bill's question about the connection between "apparent
> age"
> > and "apparent randomness". If I believed that the Bible taught that
> > the earth is young, I'd probably adopt some kind of apparent age
> view.
> > I don't believe the Bible requires that viewpoint. I do believe that
> > the Bible teaches that God governs all events even those that appear
> > to be random. Thus, even with the most hideous of events, I believe
> > that God is in control and has his reasons, although I don't always
> > fathom them. I don't believe that I'm at the mercy of chance and
> > necessity (or even my own brilliant and not-so-brilliant choices)
> and
> > I trust God in his wisdom and plan to do what he will in my life
> that
> > will accomplish his purposes for me. My kids' genetic and biological
> > makeup are the result of multitude of chance events, yet I believe
> > that they have been fearfully and wonderfully made and knitted
> > together by their sovereign Lord. Their psychological and social
> > histories are similarly contingent, and influenced by their own free
> > choices. Yet even those are directed by their sovereign Lord. Do I
> > have empirical evidence of this divine governance? Probably not
> > anything that is convincing even to a moderately skeptical person.
> > Yet, the Bible tells me so.
> >
> > TG
> >
> > ________________
> > Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> > Computer Support Scientist
> > Chemistry Department
> > Colorado State University
> > Fort Collins, CO 80523
> > (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 8 12:11:29 2009