@Richard_Wright1
Good questions, Richard.
Everyone in these discussions is using “Deist” loosely, rather than with historical accuracy. Historically, most (I won’t say all, because I believe there were some exceptions) Deists believed that God created the world and set it running, and then didn’t act further after that – hence, no miracles, no special revelation, etc. If you want to see a classic exposition of Deism in this vein, you can read a late example in Paine’s Age of Reason.
However, if we set aside the historical usage, and try to fathom how IDers, YECs, and ECs seem to be using “Deism” in these discussions, it seems to be something like this. “Deism” means something like: God set up the universe to run on its own, and doesn’t intervene in it, except in a few special cases related to Israel and the early Church. And regarding Creation, “Deism” has been modified from the original sense (because Paine and earlier Deists supposed that God created the world and life by special divine actions) to a sense incorporating modern “evolutionary” thinking – cosmic evolution, chemical evolution of life, organic evolution of species. So a modern “Deist” would put the end of God’s “active” phase earlier than a classical Deist. For the classical Deist, God’s “active” phase didn’t end until the creation of man; for a modern “evolutionized” Deist, God’s “active” phase ended after he compacted the matter/energy which burst forth in the Big Bang. He could “retire” after that.
When we bicker here about which side is more guilty of “Deism” (IDers and YECs thinking the ECs are closest to Deism, ECs charging that IDers and YECs actually incorporate Deistic thinking in their criticism of evolution), what is really at issue is whether God in Creation (not in Biblical miracles concerning Jesus, Moses, etc., but in Creation) performed any special divine actions, or whether he simply established a universe of natural laws so that lawlike and/or stochastic processes could do all the creating (of galaxies, stars, planets, atmospheres, life, species, and man) on their own, by repeated trial and error. The ID and YEC people note that most EC people have a visible preference (I stress preference, since EC people allow that God could have been actively and directly involved in special ways in creation) for scenarios which do not involve special actions of God, and for a universe that is “fully gifted” (Van Till’s phrase, I believe) and basically runs itself, from the first moment of the Big Bang on. And the ID and YEC critics of EC call such a view of creation “Deistic” – which as I said is historically confusing, but one can adjust to the sense if one keeps in mind that the basic notion behind Deism is that God is aloof from natural processes. He established their existence but does not need to do anything (beyond a vague “sustaining of the laws of nature”) for the details of the world to emerge.
Conservative evangelicals are not comfortable with this notion of “Creation” – it strikes them that God is aloof in such a model, sort of like a Board of Directors of a corporation which (as happens in some cases) lets the President/CEO run everything and just nods approval of the President’s action. They think this makes God into a very wimpy and ineffectual Chairman of the Board. So when they say that EC is “Deistic” in tones of disapproval, it is this that they have in mind.
It is harder to see the consistency in EC charges that ID and YEC are “Deistic” in their view of God and nature. After all, the same ECs who charge ID and YEC with making God too aloof from nature (as if nature runs like a machine unless God does a miracle), on other occasions charge ID and YEC with endorsing a meddling, intervening, miracle-doing God – a “God of the gaps” who is an embarrassment to good Christian theology. So ID and YEC folks can’t win for trying. When they speak of natural laws normally being followed, they are accused of being Deistic, and when they speak of nature as being actively altered by God they are accused of God of the Gaps. There is nothing they can say about God that won’t be wrong, from the EC point of view. And the EC critique seems to be playing two sides against the middle, alternately endorsing and scorning special divine involvement as the polemical needs require.
Back to Deism. The problem, as you can see, is that “Deism” is being used polemically, as a “weapon word”, by all camps. “That’s Deism, not Christianity!” is a charge of reproach. Maybe all sides should eschew using the term as a weapon. That might clarify matters, allowing everyone to talk about the substance (how God interacts with nature) and not get hung up on labels (which are not being used with precision by any of the camps anyway).
You can see that everyone is attacking a purely mechanical view of nature, and attributing to the other camps that view of nature. OK, so let’s ask: Does anyone in any of the camps actually hold to a purely mechanical view of nature? If so, which specific individuals have championed such a view? Ham? Behe? Venema? If anyone does champion that view, let us read the writings of that person and offer a critique. But if no one is championing that view, then why are we constantly accusing each other of holding it?
And if the mechanical view of nature is not a good one, what view of nature should we hold? And what views of God’s relationship to nature – and in particular to the evolutionary process, are out there? Can we get people from all camps to specify how they see God as involved in evolution? We are not asking for “proof” here or for an account of God’s involvement that is “scientific” (“science” being another word, like “Deism”, that is used as a club in these debates); we are merely asking how various individuals conceive of God as acting (or not acting) in the evolutionary process. We’re asking for a relaxed discussion in which people can advance their tentative ideas. But few are willing to advance those ideas.
Denis Lamoureux, whom you mention, is one of the clearest ECs on the question how God is involved. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Robert Russell is also very clear. Lamoureux (who as you rightly point out is not a Deist in the original sense, since he accepts revelation, historical miracles and even present-day miracles) goes along with the “fully gifted” approach wherein God sets up everything at the beginning and doesn’t “intervene” in Creation again; Russell sees God as constantly dipping his fingers in to manipulate nature, but at such a subtle level that his action is invisible to scientific investigation, and looks like “random” action to us. Russell’s God is the ultimate tinkerer, albeit an invisible tinkerer; Lamoureux’s God never tinkers. Both of these views of God and evolution are clear and internally coherent. Both are compatible with God’s complete determination of all evolutionary outcomes. (And on that point would not offend conservative evangelicals, who are big on God’s sovereignty.) But there are dozens of major EC leaders, and to my knowledge, only these two have offered such clear, accessible accounts of how they see God as being involved in evolution. Most other EC leaders (to my knowledge) have steadfastly refused to side with either of these accounts or to give any alternative account of their own. Even when told that no one will hold them to their account, that they can revise it later, they still will not speak or write about this subject. Very odd. But it’s their business. My point has been that if they won’t speak, they will be taken (by conservative evangelicals) as champions of the “aloof” God. And further, since many of them seem to believe that evolutionary outcomes are not uniquely determined by any particular starting point, but have a wandering and uncertain character, they will be taken as champions of a God who is not only aloof from natural laws, but isn’t even in control of all evolutionary outcomes, and will be accused of “Open Theism.” I don’t think anyone has made that charge against either Lamoureux or Russell. Charges can’t be made against someone who is so clear that the charges are obviously false. But charges can easily be made against those whose positions are vague or who seem to be evading any statement of their personal view. So in my view, the best way of preventing people from making all kinds of false charges, and imputing to you views about God and evolution that you don’t hold, is to make a clean breast of things and state which views about God and evolution you do hold. But it’s clear that only a handful of EC leaders see things my way on this point. They apparently regard the dangers of letting the public know their views as greater than the dangers of misinterpretation of their silence.
I think the route taken by Lamoureux and Russell is the more useful and constructive one. I wish all ECs would take it. But I can only advise, not compel, anyone to part with his or her private thoughts.