Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism

@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

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

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

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

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.

@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

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.

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

All very interesting points and worthy of further conversation. However - and this is an indictment for myself as well - not much to do with the topic of the thread at hand!

@Eddie, I think most EC’s agree with limited natural theology. I certainly do. There has been much ink spilt on this. You seem unaware of this. Seems like you need read up a bit. I really like George Murphy’s take…

This is not what I think. Though, I do appreciate your circumspect and tentative tone here. =)

I think (because of Romans 1) we can know something of God from nature. Enough to leave us “without excuse”, just as Romans teaches. Here, however, is where I deviate from the typical ID position (and agree very much with Murphy).

First, I do not think natural theology is strong or reliable.

We also read in Romans that what we find in nature is weak in that it succumbs to both: (1) “conspiracies” of men to “suppress” Truth, and (2) our innate tendency towards idolatry. So while God might speak to us in nature, this revelation is not as helpful as we might hope. Even if natural theology could be correct and clear, it is obfuscated and weakened by our idolatrous nature and the conspiracies of man. This sin (both individually in idolatry and corporately in conspiracy) is the real focus of Romans 1, and this is what leaves us “without excuse:” the final conclusion of Romans. Paul’s natural theology, is not a path to God (it only speaks of his qualities any ways), but one explanation of why we are guilty.

Second, I do not think modern science (in context) has anything to do with Paul’s natural theology.

Paul talks about things seen in nature. In our context, we immediately think that means he is talking about “science,” because that is “how” our world studies nature. However, Paul also says that whatever God is saying in nature, it is “clearly seen since the beginning.” I would assert that almost nothing that modern science sees was clearly seen 400, 1000, 2000 or 4000 years ago. Whatever Paul is talking about, it is most certainly not ID, or the fine tuning argument, or the origin of life, or DNA, or anything that people 4000 years ago would have no words for. So what could he be talking about? I think the study of nature that reveals God’s message in nature exploration, art, and poetry. These things (exploration and art) draw us all into awe and wonder as we experience in nature, and (unlike science and ID) have been around since the “beginning.”

So, with that starting point, it is very hard for me imagine Romans 1 justifying ID or any other scientific effort to uncover natural theology. This seems to be a total misreading of the passage, shaped by our idiosyncratic, skewed, “science-shaped” culture, rather than a correct interpretation of what Paul first meant.

As to the weakness of natural theology (even in art and exploration), I believe the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus is our corrective. One lesson of Jesus’s ministry is that a conspiracy of men cannot stand against God’s work in Him. The entire world conspired to murder Jesus, and it is through this act God makes his revelation in Jesus most clear, through the Resurrection three days later.

So left with a natural theology that can be suppressed by conspiracies of men (as Romans tells me), and Jesus who triumphs over all conspiracies (as Romans also tells me). I choose to focus on Jesus. I just find Him so much greater. So much greater, that I see why it might seem like I do not think natural theology is real. But natural theology is real. It is just very weak, especially compared to Jesus.

Rather than fight conspiracies to suppress natural theology, I would rather start with Him: the One against whom no conspiracies can prevail.

4 Likes

Are you suggesting, dear sir, that it is not my right to declare what everyone else should do? haha You’re right, of course, but the point that I was making still stands. The 57-67% of evangelicals who reject evolution do so because of their belief in the literal truth of Genesis. And, as you said,

Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with this, and it is the first step in my own work. Honestly, it makes no difference to me whether an individual Christian accepts or rejects evolution. We are not judged by the correctness of our opinion, but by our faith expressed in love (Gal. 5:6). I don’t seek converts to evolution; I seek converts to Christ.

My own particular interest is the younger generation, who are turning away from the Gospel in greater numbers than their parents and grandparents. There are a whole host of issues involved in that trend, and the evolution/origins debate represents only a portion of it. The people whom I am concerned about are the evangelical young adults who have grown up hearing that acceptance of evolution is antithetical to Christian belief and contrary to the teaching of the Bible. For them, I believe the first step is showing that the Bible, properly understood, does not contradict scientific theories of origins. Once that hurdle has been overcome, there are any number of plausible theological formulations that can be adopted. Dogmatists – have at it!

Amen!

Psalm 131
Lord, my heart is not haughty,
Nor my eyes lofty.
Neither do I concern myself with great matters,
Nor with things too profound for me.
Surely I have calmed and quieted my soul,
Like a weaned child with his mother;
Like a weaned child is my soul within me.

O Israel, hope in the Lord
From this time forth and forever.

2 Likes

I’m very glad you got the joke! Humor on the internet can be risky business…

But amen indeed!