Evolutionary Creationists should distance themselves more clearly from deism

The “deism with tinkering” model is what Robert John Russell calls “semi-deism”, and he (reviewing the science-faith academic literature) regards it somewhat disapprovingly as the default position in theistic evolution.

I agree with JustAnotherLutheran that it’s hard to justify in any way from Scripture, but at the rational level one has to ask why God should deal in a totally different way with matters like prayer (personally involved in real-time, at least as perceived) and nature (all set up like clockwork from the beginning). Not only does that seem inconsistent, but since answered prayer from billions of people is bound to impact upon nature at some stage, it also seems a dualism that cannot be maintained in practice.

@Jon_Garvey

I don’t really grasp your objection, Jon.

God has two ways of operating: he can work WITH natural law… using natural law (as in producing a Spring rain…

OR:

He can active supra-natural - - in other words, miraculously… above and beyond … or to the side of natural law and naturally lawful causes.

To require that God only acts miraculously is akin to saying God is not interested in cause and effect … and that he is making up his mind spontaneously … in the moment … all the time.

Is that really how you perceive God’s disposition?

This reminds me of the Greek portrayal of Zeus. Zeus is Within Nature … not the progenitor of Nature. Zeus exercises his miraculous deeds … but he is equally the subject of natural law, rather than the author of it.

Jon, are you really going to suggest that if God plans his creation too far in advance, he is not the kind of God we can praise?

[quote=“Jon_Garvey, post:288, topic:18370”]
I agree with JustAnotherLutheran that it’s hard to justify in any way from Scripture, but at the rational level one has to ask why God should deal in a totally different way with matters like prayer (personally involved in real-time, at least as perceived) and nature (all set up like clockwork from the beginning). Not only does that seem inconsistent, but since answered prayer from billions of people is bound to impact upon nature at some stage, it also seems a dualism that cannot be maintained in practice.[/quote]

That sounds suspiciously like the question “Why would God want us to pray when He knows the words we’ll use before we even use them?”. I don’t see that this advances the discussion at all. You might as well ask “Why did God bother to make natural laws when in reality He just does everything anyway?”.

But hey, let’s answer this anyway.

Because humans have a unique relationship with God, while the vast majority of nature isn’t even conscious and only humans are sufficiently aware to pray. Seriously, that’s like asking “Why would God give promises to Abraham, but not give promises to trees, how inconsistent is that?”.

1 Like

@gbrooks9 @Jonathan_Burke

I don’t agree with your terminology, but I do agree with your sentiment. The question is on what warrant one divides the world into “nature” and “humanity” and claims that God works in one mode exlusively in one area, and the other in the other.

That is not the pattern show in Scripture, where God acts personally in all areas of his creation. Indeed, Jesus uses God’s personal dealings with nature (lilies of the field, sparrows) to reassure his disciples of his concern for them, and to encourage them to pray. In the Ot Ps 104 etc do the same.

So I would respond by asking the justification for limiting God to “laws and their effects” in nature, above and beyond (and preferably more drawn from Scripture) the Deists’ justification that God would be irrational to make a clock that needed winding or adjustment - which is overturned as soon as your category of “miracle” is allowed in at all, which the Deists’, we agree, do not allow. The Deist position is at least rationally consistent in rejecting all suprnatural interaction in the world, some other argument for a “deistic” nature is required.

in any case, as I said before, if prayer affects the processes of nature providentially (“Lord, please send the spring rain and give us a good harvest”), then there’s a fair amount of adjustment (by whatever means) to natural processes anyway.

1 Like

@Jon_Garvey

This is not my suggestion or my assertion.

While I do prefer a Front-Loaded system… I don’t think it can be 100% Front-Loaded - - by definition, since I also allow for God’s miraculous actions.

But further, I’m also open to the idea that God didn’t set up the Dinosaur-killing asteroid from the very moment of creation - - and that he “poofed” the asteroid into existence.

I think the compelling reason why God cannot be a watchmaker type of creator is because Human Beings and their Freewill introduce noise into the system that prevents a 100% front-loaded system from arriving at the desired conclusion.

Some Christians do endorse a scenario where even the actions of the human mind can be Front-Loaded. I used to be one of them. But I have recently concluded that the actions of the human mind are, in terms of this Four-Dimensional Cosmos, can also be supra-natural. Maybe not always… but enough so that 100% Front-Loading becomes impossible.

Hi Jon,

If we’re serious about the notion that God works in similar modes with respect to nature and humanity, then we would have to conclude that God grants some amount of capability to nature to function in accordance with its design, just as He has granted a certain amount of capability to humans to function according to our design. Of course, humans can make decisions (unlike nature), which is an important aspect of why we are made in His image and the rocks are not.

I would also point out that the design of nature includes stochastic processes which are governed by probability distribution functions, as well as deterministic processes like gravity. While classical theology has dealt with randomness, I’m not sure it has ever seriously grappled with something like quantum mechanics.

Your thoughts?

Advent blessings,

1 Like

Hi Eddie,

I’m not sure how you get from my statement to yours, unless your logic is that anyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto bothered by your view.

Advent blessings,
Chris

3 Likes

Hi Chris

You’re right of course, and also wiser than some TEs have been in clearly distinguishing the given nature of man from that of the rest of nature, which means we can discuss secondary causes without (I hope) getting bogged down in free-will issues. But if we accept the man/nature distinction, one of the distinctives of mankind’s nature is to accept the government of God willingly (“whose service is perfect freedom” etc - cf the perfect example of Jesus). Neither, in classical theology, does our free nature make us autonomous of providence: that is where the doctrine of concurrence has been most discussed. “Man plans his course, but the Lord directs his steps”.

Yet we do also have non-voluntary aspects of our nature that follow “the law of humans” in the way we walk, what we can eat, and other specifics corresponding to those in other creatures. So perhaps we are agreed that there is “some degree” of voluntarism in higher animals, less in protozoa and plants, and none at all in minerals, but also things that are “fixed” and predictable, so can be described as biological or physical laws.

Bear in mind, though, that “laws” carries biblical baggage: it is not actually natural things obeying laws outside themselves but, as you rightly say, “functioning according to design”. You could say (like Aristotle, maybe) that the natures of created things govern the regularities that are decribed as laws. That;s interesting - but it’s the irregularities where the creative stuff happens most.

On chance: Quantum mechanics is useful as a test case here because, physically, they are probably fundamentally stochastic, although of doubtful practical importance as most seem to deny any bias from quantum events at the macro scale. Still, classical theology has no problem with them, because the principles it developed even before evolution cover it (see below).

I would nit-pick (but for positive reasons) with your phrase “governed by probability functions”, because probabilities are not causes of anything, but effects of actual causes (leaving to one side those pesky quanta). So a coin toss is entirely determined by the strength and manner of the toss, and the design of the coin that guarantees it must come to rest flat on one side or the other. The predicted probability of 50:50 for such a system is, in essence, a theoretical estimate of what will happen given a wide range of determined conditions, and although a real system will never exactly produce that equality it will tend towards it. It is the design and operation of the system determines the probability distribution, which itself determines nothing.

This means that any probability function is actually the summation of actual causes that are (as far as the things that interest us here are concerned) unknown in detail, although we can guess them (eg, in a coin toss, imprecise mucle control etc: in gas-laws Brownian motion etc). It follows that chance causes nothing, and that we cannot know whether any “chance” event is natural, providential or anything else - how God might providentially influence a coin toss, or Urim and Thummin, is as unknown as how a muscle twitch would, but it is still just as plausible a cause, in principle, as the “natural” causes.

In the case of the quanta, it’s a uniquely interesting case because we know (we think!) that there is no physical force determing them, yet we also know they must be governed by real causes, not Epicurean randomness, simply because they have about the most exact probability distribution in the world - en masse they are highly ordered. In classical theology, quantum events would be regarded as governed by providence simply because every contingency finally is, through divine concurrence: but it would be tempting to regard them as being exclusively governed by providence, analogously to the way we might say the Big Bang or Cosmic Fine Tuning are, because the physics runs out before the cause is reached.

Briefly, on concurrence: this concept denies the division of causation into natural OR divine by making all events both. John Walton has a good analogy for this, in the form of a layer cake: any slice (any event) will have both a lower, natural, causal chain and an upper, divine one. Trying to analyse the cream in the middle where they join probably takes the analogy, and the theology, too far!

EDIT: forgot to add blessings to you to, Chris! Advent’s a long wait, but well worth it!

3 Likes

An addition to my reply (more than a reply to the replies). Another factor to consider is that, well before evolution suggested the world was still a’making, classical theology felt it had to subsume providence as a kind of creation, especially in the Orthodox branch where “continuous creation” is a prominent way to talk about things that the west tends to speak of more often as “sustaining”.

This was not only because Scripture uses God’s word for “create” (“bara”) many times after Genesis, but because of the realisation that creation has more to do with “ontological dependence” than just “coming to exist at a point in time”; and therefore this continuous creation, or providence, must include events and not just things, and govern secondary causes as well as “miracles”. Apart from anything else, human history is constantly changing, but according to Scripture under God’s ultimate control.

Now, with evolution comes the concept that God is not only sustaining and continuing the natural world of fixed species as it was delivered on the biblical 7th day, but is introducing innovation and transformation over time: the Leviathan and Behemoth he boasts of in Job were created well along the time line of the world.

It seems to me that reinforces the appropriateness of creatio continua, which was considered a necessity by mainstream theology even before “God creates through evolution” became a thing.

1 Like

FURTHER QUICK EDIT: Dear me - another omission. Regarding qunatum events I should have said something more along the lines that it is the given nature of particles to act as they do (hence their probability distribution is natural, but inexplicable in terms of anything else’s nature). When they act, however, would on the basis of my previous answer, be governed by providence - what else is there?

1 Like

@Jon_Garvey

Now that is pretty interesting… In this Biblical scenario, I would say Leviathan and Behemoth are “creations” along the same line as a big thunderstorm is one of God’s creations…

Not quite sure what you mean by that George, but I’d reply that in mathematical terms a thunderstorm is pretty formulaic: an algorithm with some chaotic functions will do the job. A Leviathan or a Behemoth (I’d take the view those are likley to signify crocodile and hippo, from the descriptions - but any new species will do) is a whole other ball game.

That’s not to say a thunderstorm isn’t a creation, but the informational content is of several lower orders of magnitude.

1 Like

@Jon_Garvey

Who are you and what have you done with the real Jon Garvey!?

You are suggesting that the Divine Mind that creating an exploding Universe … and mapped out the properties of Quarks and all sorts of other sub-atomic particles… could not propagate a creature by evolutionary forces?

I suppose, then, you must reject any Speciation at all by conventional natural processes?

No - I just reject the concept of “conventional natural processes”, that is, processes operating apart from God’s providence.

One could rephrase the question, “speciation entirely by the operation of God’s regular laws rather than by unexplained contingency”, and the question almost answers itself, because current evolutionary science is driven by contingency in the form of “random” mutations, “random” environments, “random” asteroid strikes, “random” sexual preferences amongst peahens etc. No proposed theory of evolution is entirely lawlike, although some of the currently “fringe” ideas like structuralism and laws of emergent complexity come closer to that than Neodarwinism does. The explanatory adequacy of theories - including current theory - is another matter entirely and doesn’t change the theological implications.

Gaps in lawlike processes, in current theory, are therefore plugged with “chance” , which I have been suggesting is not only not an evolutionary “force”, but not a “force” at all, but a term covering our ignorance of true causes, including the creative involvement of God, acting providentially. It’s really not unconventional, in terms of classical theology.

Examples: storms can be largely understood according to the laws of physics, including chaos theory - but that a storm appears to drown Jonah as he flees God, or to reveal God to Job, or in reponse to prayers for rain nowadays, shows the creative providence of God.

Creatures are propagated by natural generation (rather than evolution) - but that you, I, or other particular individuals were born is the creative work of God.

Evolutionary processes are a function of nature, but that God claims personal credit for the novel characteristics of Leviathan and Behemoth (and the warhorse, and the wild donkey and so on) shows the contingencies to be governed by his special providence, just as the lawlike elements of evolution are demonstrations of his general providence.

To the extent that a species is unique, it is not lawlike (laws are simple abstractions of reproducible processes). Epicurean randomness cannot be creative: in any case, Christianity has only one Creator within nature, that is God. When we see “random” mutations (including genome duplications, HGT, hybridisation etc), then, we must ask theologically “Why those mutations?”. And if we propose selection by an environment, we must ask “How come that particular environment, that particular “gene pool”, those particular survivals of predation?”

And we end up with a theistic account of nature that refuses to separate it dualistically into “God’s bit” and “nature’s bit”, but makes it “God’s creation” - with secondary causes following the natures, or laws, God has given, and his Fatherly providence interacting with all those causes to move them towards the good ends he has in mind.

2 Likes

Hey Jon,

Thanks for the response.

Let me start by humbly saying that I did wrongly use the term, “secondary causes” as you figured out. Philosopy is not my strong suit and I occasionally have to look up definitions of terms, but that doesn’t make me an occasionalist! :sweat_smile:

This is an interesting point, but I’m not sure what exactly is low in information.

My only point there is that since we both consider Job a poem, the prologue stating that Satan can control storms isn’t a declaration that Satan can actually do that.[quote=“Jon_Garvey, post:281, topic:18370”]
But to me that is only achieved at the cost of the God who is not only transcendent, but immanent in creation as Father, caring moment by moment for each and every thing he has made (from galaxy to quark). Though God is eternal, his presence and activity are experienced in time, and there’s no good reason I can think of to privilege the “moment of creation” over the rest of time for his active involvement.
[/quote]

I don’t think any of that is lost with my view of how God works. If God has infinite intelligence and power, then he will have packed the activities for every quark (and therefore galaxy) for the rest of physical eternity in the moment of creation, with all the care and love provided. There simply isn’t a reason to do anything more until the only force that counters his will, that of evil, starts to work on his image-bearers.

One, now we have decision makers (I’m not sure if it’s one or two - did the blow come from a person - my point still holds though), and two, praying. I’ve no problem with God answering prayers however He choses to do that. [quote=“Jon_Garvey, post:281, topic:18370”]
In that scenario, the attribution of everything in nature to “natural laws” seems a bit limiting, and unncessary…
[/quote]

God intervened into physical nothingness and initiated a physical paradigm. That Big Bang in my mind can be seen as one act of creation in eternity from God’s perspective and experienced in time by us. I just don’t see why that creation can’t have the inbred intelligence to unfold to exactly how God would want it to. I don’t see that as limiting or unnecessary. I see it as showing his unlimited power and foresight, as well as love.

The laws are just our way of describing the forces that God put into existence from the start. It is they, the forces, that do the work. The laws are just the math behind them.

God had a purpose for this physical paradigm, to evolve his image-bearers. I’m not so sure if I believe that God cares about every gluon in the universe in the same way He cares about us. The universe is at his command to get us here - if He can accomplish that without any tinkering, which of course He can, I don’t believe that makes Him lazy, aloof, distant or what have you. That is just the creator being the supreme being that He is and using his unlimited intellectual powers to their fullest

Hi Eddie,

I’ve been busy and intend to check out Jon’s column tomorrow.

Hi Richard - either you’re a night bird or you’re not on US time!

I won’t respond point by point, or we end up with endlessly diverging lists, so just a few points.

First - it’s good, if trivial, to get our terms clarified, for others’ discussions as well as our own. I didn’t have you down as an occasionalist!

In some ways I think our instincts are similar, in that neither of us wants a God “forced to tinker” because of bad planning. I’m just unhappy both on theological and scientific grounds to see the big bang as, literally, the event by which all other events unfold. Better, from my point of view, to see the “one creative act” as occurring in God’s eternity: then history can unfold in a creative way from that timeless creation whether by lawlike or contingent processes, involving minds or not. God’s transcendence and his immanence are then characteristic of his involvement in all areas of creation.

What I mean by “information” in laws is that, by definition, they are simple rules: “e=mc^2” is powerful, but simple - and even those complex laws of physics that describe all behind what we so far know can, I’m told, be written on a single sheet of paper. Compare that to what information is needed to describe even the simplest bacterium: the world consists of contingencies we can only observe, as well as laws which predict - that was a fundamental of early modern science that distinguished it from the Greek idea that the armchair was the best place to reason out how God rationally runs the world.

Minds do, of course make a difference - but if we restrict that to human (and presumably angelic) beings we follow the Cartesian route of denying all teleology outside the human soul - which closes off a number of scientific possibilities.

For example, at some level all life, and especially higher animals, is purpose driven - and the trend has been away from Descartes’ idea that animals are mere automatons, though I’d disagree with those who deny human exceptionalism on those grounds. Nevertheless, the Bible too encourages us to treat creatures with respect and compassion as “sentient” beings in their own right, and (to qualify your focus on humanity as the focus of God’s concern) the psalmist says “The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made,” and that in the context of “every living thing”.

Gluons might not be quite so amenable to compassion - but since human physicists are interested in them and like to try and detect them individually, He of the unlimited intellectual powers is not likely to be less interested as their maker and sustainer!

1 Like

@Jon_Garvey

Since I have been discussing God’s participation in the evolutionary processes… and at no time suggest “randomness” … I believe you are simply exploiting semantic issues here.

If God is involved in Evolution, it is nothing like Evolution as described by scientists who don’t include God in their thinking or discussions.

So I don’t know why you are attempting to lump my discussions in with the “mindless” or “intentionless” form of Evolution.

I’m not. You asked me to explain my self, so I did.