Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism

Faith & Science Conversation
103

Hi Eddie,

Hope you don’t mind me jumping into the fray. :slight_smile:

If they don’t accept evolution then they don’t accept accepted science and that is where their’s and EC’s world-views diverge: we see evolution as, “the earth revolves around the sun” and aren’t there yet and don’t seem to be trying to get there. And as I said before of course they will be literally scared of the non-interventionist variety. However, the place for anyone to start to begin to accept evolution is in the science class. Once someone sees the actual evidence and the strength of it for themselves, then possibly they may start to consider looking at early Genesis a little differently.

I can’t speak for EC leaders, but I don’t know of any non-interventionist EC that would say God, “rolled the dice” or that God can’t intervene. [quote=“Eddie, post:91, topic:18370”]
But if they suspect that the ultimate result of accepting all the arguments about fossils and genomes will be to to push them into a new view of God which is incompatible with the orthodox views of generations of their forbears, they will tighten up, and the opportunity will be lost.
[/quote]

There seems to be 3 issues at play here (and with the above points). One is that there apparently are EC leaders making statements that don’t vibe with 95% or more of ECs. Two, there may be a need to part with orthodox views of how God works through nature, as in the days of Galileo. Three, these people who you seem to feel need to be convinced that a belief in evolution doesn’t mean rejecting the God that they know are the ones who need to do the work. They are the ones that need to look at the mountains of evidence that support evolution, biological and cosmological, and they need to do study out what is deism and how EC (at least as supported by the vast majority of its adherers) is not that.

In your’s and other’s opinion, not certainly in mine. In Job you will find a lot of passages like the following:

“Who provides food for the raven, when its young cry out to God.”

Of course this means that God set up the universe to evolve an earth, that evolved an atmosphere, life, trees, worms and birds for birds to look for their food for their young. Why is it so hard to see that God spoke to ancients and related his intimacy with nature in ways they could understand. But, in my humble opinion anyway, non-interventionist evolution (bio and cosmo) does not in the slightest lose the flavor of God involved with his creation.[quote=“Eddie, post:1, topic:18370”]

So God’s role is limited to creating matter/energy/laws in the first place, and perhaps “sustaining” matter/energy/laws by his power. That’s what EC/TE often sounds like to many Christians, and that’s why many of them resist it.
[/quote]

A, “limited role”? If God did create a universe with with the laws having the power to get us here, that is more like unlimited power, foresight and intelligence.

However, in my opinion that is not why many Christians don’t accept evolution, though it may be a contributing factor. The real reason is that they don’t know the evidence, are unwilling to make changes in their theology and won’t bother to study it for themselves since they don’t trust scientists in general. other than those who reject evolution, and thus become filled with inaccurate notions of what it is and false rejections of upteen elements of it.

By the way, I did like the mini theology lesson you gave in a previous response to me.

2 Likes
104

Exactly. They need to accept the scientific facts first, and then talk about the theology. If they already accept the scientific facts then great, let’s talk about the theology. But if they’re in the position of “I’m not going to accept X unless you can prove it’s compatible with my theology”, they’re thinking completely wrongly. That’s putting personal opinion before facts. That’s not good science or good theology.

1 Like
106

I’m not an EC leader, certainly not a published one unless prolific rambles on comment boards like this one count! Nevertheless, here is my clear, unambiguous statement for you: God planned and determined the outcomes. Period. Full Stop.

I know this doesn’t replace a statistic that would tell us how many EC leaders think on this, but at least its an inkling of anecdotal evidence for here and now. Especially if we hear a chorus of other ECs here disagree with this given statement and say “No God didn’t”. If that happens here, that will lend, at least anecdotal credence to your conjecture and against mine about what ECs at large think about this.

I’m happy agree with this, as far as the creeds go (you’ve probably studied them far more than I have). But at the same time, this is easy for us to make this distinction now. I imagine there would have been many a church father who would bristle at your suggestion and ask “what do you mean that an immobile earth is not part of orthodoxy?” If it wasn’t, then why would folks like Bellarmine bother getting their hackles raised over the issue? “If you can’t accept the Bible’s clear teaching on this basic issue, how can you receive all its more central doctrinal teachings?” --a sentiment we certainly hear echoed now on different, but related issues, right?

Of course I still agree with you that it isn’t – but that agreement over that issue comes easily for us now. That’s my point. It’s fine to point to the creeds and say “that’s what’s important”. But then getting people to agree on precisely what all belongs in that centrally important package of things and what doesn’t, that’s what is so difficult. Very few people stop at the simple creeds and say that they contain all the important things we need to receive. Witness the prolonged tempests here and elsewhere about our many extra-creedal issues that we consider worthy of our attentions and labors.

3 Likes
107

I wholeheartedly agree!

If there are any ECs in the building who disagree, let them speak now or remain silent forever ;).

3 Likes
108

Hi Eddie -

I thank you for your considered response, as well.

It seems that you acknowledge the difference between Meyer’s and Axe’s arguments to design, on the one hand, and the argument for God’s hand in creation based on its operating in a lawlike fashion, on the other. Your understanding of the difference is important common ground between us.

You have a different take on the extent to which EC leaders truly subscribe to the latter than I do. We can live with that, I’m sure.

Agreed. Let’s put that into practice by talking about the ID movement for a moment. In terms of public prominence, the Peter and Paul of the ID movement are Stephen Meyer and Casey Luskin. They both defend the inference to ID from (supposed) lack of scientific explanatory capability. So there is no reason to wonder at why ECs, or the public in general, should not notice the views of Sternberg and Denton. Meyer and Luskin are dominating the conversation in the public square.

Perhaps you should go to the Evolution News and View forum and start a thread entitled “Intelligent Design Leaders Should Distance Themselves More Clearly From God-of-the-Gaps Arguments.”

The only evolutionary model I have ever seen Behe propose is on page 227 of Darwin’s Black Box:

“Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not ‘turned on.’ In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.) Additionally, suppose the designer placed into the cell some other systems for which we cannot adduce enough evidence to conclude design. The cell containing the designed systems then was left on autopilot to reproduce, mutate, eat and be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer all the vagaries of life on earth.”

If you can describe how natural mechanisms proximately explain the origin of that first cell 4 billion years ago, expect to receive a call from a committee in Sweden in the very near future. Remember, that first cell needed, according to Behe, to contain all of the expressed DNA instructions found in the biosphere today. If you think the RNA world is not a good explanation for biogenesis, how can you explain Behe’s first cell as any thing other than divine intervention lying outside, not within, natural mechanisms?

If Behe has published a different evolutionary model than the one he outlined in DBB, I would appreciate any links you could provide to it. Not just an affirmation of common descent, but a model of how common descent can be detected and explained by biological mechanisms.

Thanks, and blessed Advent season to you and yours,
Chris Falter

2 Likes
109

@Chris_Falter,

Really? Does Behe really assert this as a necessary part of his scenario?

The more I learn about Behe’s premises, the more intent he seems to be on not fitting in with any school of science…

1 Like
110

Yes, I agree that modern varieties can stray far from historical roots. It is incoherent to speak of nature or the creation as having “freedom.” I was just noting the same thing that Jon, over at the Hump, pointed out via an exchange between you and Oord: “According to Open Theist Thomas Jay Oord in a BioLogos comment to Eddie, Calvinists and Thomists are much less easy to persuade to change their views on the fundamental nature of God “from reason, Scripture and experience” than Arminians, Pentecostals, Anabaptists and others.”

Well … ya got me there! Haha

1 Like
115

To begin with, Richard, I very much like your entire response to Eddie, since it deals with the essence of what BioLogos was supposed to address. I am taking the liberty of accepting the invitation you gave to Eddie in the quote above. This thread has produced somewhat of a “plethora of riches” tho. Brought up as a traditional Catholic, I found here was little to be had in the way of mental stimulation in the Sunday sermons or Bible classes–solid, devotionally, but an intellectual wilderness. Now I will be busy for weeks digesting the contents of this one thread. Because I ‘have no axe to grind’–‘no dog in the hunt’–my comments should have little impact. But nonetheless here they are, as framed in the context of what Teilhard described as a Universe consisting of Cosmosphere giving rise to->Biosphere- giving rise to->Noosphere. I accept as axiomatic that the Cosmosphere was created ex nihilo together with the physico-chemial laws which guides its development (rather than evolution) to this day. The appearance of the Biosphere amidst the non-living chemicals existing at the time (abiogenesis) cannot be explained by today’s science, and thus currently is an example of “the God of the Gaps”. By what is commonly referred to as ‘neo-Darwinian evolution’ the first living cell evolved into all the complex variety of life forms we now see on this planet. After nearly 4 billion years this evolutionary process, fueled by (seemingly) random mutations and natural selection, produced a relatively small number of a primate species we now call Homo sapiens. This was NOT the beginning of the Noosphere nor the beginning of humankind. Then, just about 40,000 yrs ago (an eye blink in Universal history), something remarkable occurred. In the words of Jared Diamond, and adopted by Richard Dawkins, Homo sapiens took a “Great Leap Forward”, an absolutely impossible event for neo-Darwinian evolution to explain. This was the beginning of the Noosphere, the sphere of Ideas. The future course taken by Humankind was henceforth dependent as much on evolution in the Noosphere as on evolution in the Biosphere. In fact evolution in the Biosphere, as evidenced by changes in the human genome, might well be dominated by advances in the Noosphere (e.g. “Redesigning Life; Clinical CRISPR”, John Parrington)
Now in reference to some of the comments you made to @Eddie on 12/24:
1) Back on topic, can you explain how God being powerful enough to create a nature that has the capacity to evolve man to be, “wimpy”? As I stated before, Dawkins certainly doesn’t hold that view. (2) You may mean that we claim that He is aloof in nature, but I think that is a distinction that is not usually explained and, more importantly, it isn’t true.(3) “Aloof” has an emotive element to it and it just doesn’t make sense to apply it to the unfolding of nature,

In my Worldview (Al Leo’s), God WAS aloof when the Universe consisted solely of the Cosmosphere, and this aloofness continued to a large degree until the beginning of the Noosphere. For example, after the Big Bang, matter collected into huge galaxies and gravity formed spectacular stars of impressive magnitude and power. But the physical laws God had imposed at the start doomed the larger stars to explode and scatter their newly formed heavy elements into surrounding space–where they collected in newer stars and planets like our earth.

At the beginning of the Biosphere, life forms were simple, and exactly how each form preserved, altered and transmitted the information that was producing novelty and complexity—this was of no direct concern of God, for He had given the evolutionary process considerable freedom, guided only by the dictum to produce variety. When that variety had taken the forms that could be seen as predator and prey competing in the_natural selection_ process, and possessing the sensory perception to know fear and anticipate pain–only then could the emotion-filled question of God’s care versus aloofness arise. From our human (anthropocentric) viewpoint, it is comforting to think that God would not long tolerate such suffering in some of His creatures and that his eventual intent would be to have the lion lie down with the lamb and eat grass instead of flesh. Even Isaiah must have known that was wishful thinking. But it is not unreasonable to believe that God may have been pleased to see that evolutionary freedom had produced, not only fear and suffering, but compassion and self-sacrifice (as evidenced e.g. by motherly love) and that any creature that exhibited these behaviors (replacing raw instinct) would become more like Himself. Could the Biosphere be approaching a level where at least one of its inhabitants was worthy of God’s Care and not His Aloofness? And what about the impact of the Cosmosphere (where aloofness reigned) had upon the Biosphere, where aloofness was about to be replaced by care?

We now know that actions in the Cosmosphere, such as plate-techtonics and meteorite strikes, were essential in creating the variety of ecological niches that evolution needed to produce the natural selection that ‘guided’ life from single cells to Homo sapiens. But such actions also produced mass extinctions of the species well on their way in that journey. Was God aloof to the meteor strike at Chicxulub that caused the extinction of dinosaurs; i.e.,did He just let physical laws take their course and shrug off the resulting chaos as so much unavoidable ancillary damage? What if another asteroid has the earth in its sights, now the Noosphere has been established? He might not need to show His Care by intervening in our behalf, IF we have properly utilized the Noosphere and His gift of intellect. Unlike T.Rex, we might detect and deflect such a bolide. That might serve as our Final Exam as a species.

(4) [Richard again] Further, in my opinion, God is no more aloof in letting his intelligent creation evolve than he is in letting society evolve. So, according to your view, if God does a couple of miraculous acts over billions of years, or, “guides” mutations he is not aloof in nature, yet allows millions of innocents to be slaughtered in society without intervening and is not considered, “aloof”. “Aloofness” simply doesn’t apply to the question, other than using the term as a mild ad-hominem attack.

As you point out, Richard, this is a conundrum that we as Christians have not truly figured out: God gifted us with intellect and free will which enabled us to form societies that effectively dominated the planet earth. As much as is possible, we were made in His image. And yet the societies we formed we not pleasing in His sight. So He sent Jesus into our world who had human DNA and yet was the perfect image of His Father, and who would lead us back to Him…from alpha to omega. At least this is how I see Christ’s mission: we can continue to behave instinctually as neo-Darwinian evolution formed Homo sapiens; or we can follow His example, rise above that nature and become New Creations in the Noosphere.

(5) {Here is where you and I disagree a bit, Richard] By the way, I believe man to be a special creation as well, just that we evolved with no tinkering. In my view man is no less, “special” then if he were, “instantaneously” created being that, as a Christian, I hold that God intentioned man through evolution.

I believe the Great Leap Forward to be factual, and thus the relatively sudden appearance of humankind may get a biological explanation by some as yet unknown epigenetic mechanism. So currently we cannot say there was absolutely “no tinkering”–no God of the Gaps. But in any case, humankind IS as special as if created instantaneously.

So, for what its worth, chalk this up as the Gospel of the Kook, Al Leo
Al

1 Like
116

I am quite familiar with the distinction between the natural and revealed knowledge of God. Luther acknowledged it and generations of theologians in my tradition would agree that Rom. 1:20 hints at a phenomenon common to even fallen humanity’s perspectives on the universe: that there is an immense creativity (power) and a terrifying echo of something otherworldly (divinity). But you are right to say this knowledge is limited. First: natural knowledge of theological realities (God) cannot produce anything like the Christian knowledge of “God for me”. In the words of the Erlangen theologian Paul Althaus, “The experiences of life repeatedly speak against this possibility [of God for me]; and since the mere thought of God cannot assert itself against this experience, a man’s actual situation is always one of doubt.” Second: though reason and experience can acknowledge the possible existence of the divine, it hasn’t the slightest clue as to who or what the divine is. “On the contrary, it always applies the idea of God t something that isn’t God at all. It ‘plays blindman’s buff with God,’ reaches out to grab him but misses him, and grasps not the true God but idols, either the devil, or a wish-fulfilment dream of the human soul - and such a dream also comes from the devil. Human reason does not know who the real God is. That knowledge is taught only by the Holy Spirit.” (And only by specific means, I might add. But thus far, Althaus.)

Which is in small part why, as a theologian, I’m skeptical of the ID movement (there are other scientific and philosophic objects I might raise, but I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher). Natural revelation is not a means by which God assures sinners of their justification/shows himself to be their loving and merciful Father; quite the opposite, since the natural knowledge of God leads to terror, self-deception, and slavery. That knowledge of “God for me” comes only in the proclamation of the specially revealed Gospel. And it is only once one has been gripped by the Gospel that she or he can come to see the majesty of creation as a good gift from God (even if the “how” of that particular giftedness is not evident), and even then, only tentatively since we “see now as through a mirror dimly”. (1 Cor. 13:12) After all, it is easily enough terrifying to think that the God who claims ultimate responsibility for the human capacity for love is the same God who claims ultimate rule over the most alien, strange, and horrific parts of this universe. So by “tentatively” I mean, our capacity to appreciate God’s goodness, justice, and mercy in nature are exceedingly impaired even for Christians which means a perpetual flight back to the clear words of the Gospel.

But I’m sincerely curious: What is it ID people are hoping to find and why are they hoping to find it? What’s the motive (and I’m sure there are numerous well thought-out and valid answers)?

2 Likes
118

Yep… the video was “findable” (sic) … and is now the foundation for a brand new thread, located at the link provided at the bottom. Thank you, @Eddie.

119

@Chris_Falter made it clear that at least he was not asserting this. Indeed, he went out of his way to say so. But I wanted to voice it again because it is a temptation for theologians in general and proponents of YEC, ID, and EC (myself included) in particular. Repetition is the mother of all learning, after all.

It does assert things about God which I need not accept (e.g. that I can find scientifically verifiable proof of the existence of a god) and it may assert things about God which are worth rejecting (even if your general convictions do not conflict with the particular assertions I’ve communicated above). Would you say this is a fair counterpoint?

3 Likes
120

And thank you for the suggested resources! It’s been a while since I’ve ventured into the ID literature and I’m thankful for your input.

121

You say “the” way forward; definitive and singular. I would phrase it as: An enriched (that is, utilizing many resources for information) and conscientious (that is, aware of other disciplines outside Biblical interpretation) hermeneutic is part of doing theology responsibly concerning the topic of origins. “Part”, because theology is a big world and hermeneutics is one lovely limb (how dare you leave dogmaticians out in the cold!). And “doing theology responsibly” (rather than “way forward”) because - and this may not even contradict you but it’s a point I want to make - the sole theological goal toward which we ought to be moving is proclamation of the Gospel. The theological side in the debate of origins, if it is responsible to the task given by God in the Commission, is a matter of removing stumbling blocks which hinder the declaration of God’s mercy shown in Christ; a task to which the Church has always aspired. I wonder if I’ve made my point with any clarity? Let me know if this sounds too much like nonsense.

But I must return to my first two questions: (1) What role might the Christian God have in an evolutionary process? And (2) How is the God of Christianity different from the deistic notions of God? (These are, after all, the subject of the thread!) To summarize my answer to question (2), I said that the God of the Christians is (a) a God who chooses to be known with certainty only in special revelation since (b) human capacities for recognizing God are infinitely impaired (even if vestiges of a notion of the divine power and majesty remain, echoing in present existence). And (c) that the sole goal of God’s self-revelation is to show himself as the righteous God who shows mercy on the unrighteous (i.e., Law and Gospel).

Moving to question (1), I ask again: What role might the Christian God have in an evolutionary process? If evolution is the process by which life has come into the variety of its present existence (as I’m convinced it is), then we can know as much about the Christian God’s role therein as we can know his role in the hydrologic cycle or monsoons or the mating habits of squirrels. In short, we can’t know the role of the Deus revelatus because it isn’t revealed. The Deus absconditus, God behind the veil, God as he has not revealed himself, God as he is not known to us; it is within this realm where God’s part in evolution will fall, I think (and this is a preliminary thought worth much more investigation). Which means there is a high risk of vanity and idle speculations. But I think theology as an academic discipline is tasked with running this risk as close to the edge as it can go, SO LONG AS theology keeps in mind its ultimate purpose: proclamation.

Which, to be fair, separates us all the more from deists. Christians acknowledge that the “lion’s share” of things to be known about God remain in the transcendence and incomprehensibility of God. Which flies in the face of Enlightenment hubris. We acknowledge how little we know.

I think it safe to say that a Christian proponent of EC who agrees, if not to the exact phrasing, at least with the essence of what I’ve said concerning Christianity is well distinguished from deism.

3 Likes