But in the process of explaining yourself… you said my words are expounding mindless evolution?
Am I misinterpreting what you said about my own words?
Yup, I’m afraid so. I’m rejecting your supposition about what I believe, because I don’t subscribe to the concept “conventional natural processes” that you ask me to accept of reject as a cause of speciation. If you put words in my mouth, you shouldn’t be surprised if I spit them out.
Okay… @Jon_Garvey, I think we are getting closer here.
So … you don’t subscribe to (i.e., you reject the validity of …) the phrase “Conventional Natural Processes”. << Jon, don’t you think this is rather extraordinary?
The phrase is made of 3 ordinary words… with no theological baggage at all.
“Natural” << I think all theologians would agree on what is meant by “Natural”.
“Processes” << I think all theologians would agree that this word introduces no trouble or controversy.
“Conventional” << I think all theologians would agree on the non-controversial nature of the word “conventional” - - in other words, “not special” … “not unusual”. Is it THIS word that throws you?
How can you reject a 3 word phrase that can easily accommodate the actions of God when nothing miraculous in-and-of-itself is being done?
Are all rain storms miracles? Or would you rather phrase this as: “Not all rain storms are miracles.” << ???
Is God more like Zeus… having nothing to do with nature … and throwing the occasional miraculous thunderbolt when he has a mind to?
Care to give me a theological definition that all are agreed on, George?
My definition of “natural” is that of Bishop Butler, quoted by Asa Gray (thus being endorsed by both a theologian and an evolutionary scientist):
“The only distinct meaning of the word ‘natural’ is stated, fixed or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent mind to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times"
Now, unless evolution (which is all about innovation and change) can be said to be occurring in a settled, predictable way, “continually or at stated times”, then I suggest “natural” is a misleading term scientifically - because contingency is not “fixed” or “settled”, and is the very thing needed explanation either by some entity called “chance”, or else by divine action; and theologically, because it implies that processes in the world habitually carry on independently of God, except under extraordinary “miraculous” circumstances. But the Bible treats nature as God’s means of government of the world - you can’t talk about a tool without implicating the person using it.
Your challenge to me was [quote=“gbrooks9, post:300, topic:18370”]
I suppose, then, you must reject any Speciation at all by conventional natural processes?
[/quote]
That presupposes that processes within nature are not only necessary, but sufficient, for speciation. But speciation is also necessarily an act of creation, and creation does not work by processes, but by the word of God, “in whom we live, and move, and have our being.”
So… @Jon_Garvey, what you meant to say was that you oppose Speciation as a valid outcome of natural processes…
You don’t reject the phrase “Conventional Natural Processes”. Now that is more clear to me.
You do not think Evolution (without God’s participation) can produce speciation.
I’m not sure I ever grasped your opposition to this until today.
Shouldn’t we ask a living scientist, one who studies the natural world, what “natural” means?
1 Like
Well we could … but I don’t think it’s really necessary.
@Jon_Garvey finally clarified that he doesn’t oppose the 3 word phrase.
He really opposes the idea that speciation is possible without God’s role in Evolution.
Yup, you found me out George - I’m what they call a “theistic evolutionist”, but don’t tell anyone round here. 
1 Like
You know, @Jon_Garvey, I’ve heard the phrase THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST before… and I always assumed I knew what it meant.
WOW… it never even occurred to me that such a flavor existed!
Just to tweeze out the separate strands a little bit … but keeping the strands Together:
“THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISM”
- Life did evolve.
- Looks as though evolution is working on its own; but its through God’s involvement each time.
- On the spectrum of beliefs… one might place Theistic Evolution somewhere
between Creationists (who see each life form as a creation of God) and Intelligent Design, where God’s involvement in Evolution is more “spare” or “selective”… and the easier parts of Speciation may can occur without miraculous events (assuming there is time for such processes to occur).
Do you think these 3 points apply to you? Or is there some further nuances you would add or correct?
FWIW I consider my position to be pretty much what “theistic evolution” started off as in the days of Asa Gray, Charles Kingsley and B B Warfield - not to mention Alfred Russel Wallace, despite his particular Deity delegating his creative work to a hierachy of spiritual beings. All good reading.
If you’re happy to accept that I’d wish to nuance every one of your three points (language being so prone to misinterpretation)…
(1) Yup
(2) Yup - just as the whole of nature looks like it’s working on its own but involves God all the time (and to clarify, nature is certainly genuinely working its thing, only not on its own - ask me later why to us it looks autonomous).
(3) It’s tempting to say “Yup” since I’m not accountable for other people’s positions - but each of the other two positions may also be nuanced, so here I will waffle a bit to move things on.
For creationism Joshua describes James Tour’s position as “progressive creationism” - but there doesn’t look much difference from an active form of theistic evolution, and Joshua hinted to me that Tour sees that truly theistic evolution can be seen as progressive creation in another light.
For ID people, the question is purely design, which for some with a good theological background (I’m thinking of Vincent Torley for example, or even William Dembski) would mean placing that design, as I do, beyond process and into to the realm of creation. If there’s a difference overall it’s the tendency of ID to deny that the mechanisms of evolution are physically able to produce the goods, hence invoking “the Designer” in the physical process, though not necessarily “miraculously”.
But whilst I’m quite happy (in a different argument) to criticise the adequacy of current theories as science, in terms of theology good theories of evolution will “work” - but they will only produce the contingent results God intends because of his active involvement. Hence the analogy I’ve used before - generation is a process explicable by science, but the creation of George, Jon or Whoever is not. In the same way, we will one day, perhaps, have a complete theory of evolution to explain how life diversifies - but it still won’t explain why there are leopards and asparagus rather than anything else (or even total extinction), because these things are works of God’s creation.
2 Likes
Just in case you don’t like the answers you get back.
1 Like
I’m satisfied (perhaps happy?) with your discussion of the nuances - - right up to just one little point:
You say: "If there’s a difference overall it’s the tendency of ID to deny that the mechanisms of evolution are physically able to produce the goods, hence invoking “the Designer” in the physical process, though not necessarily “miraculously”.
I’m not sure if you offer this qualification because if Aliens were somehow involved, obviously that wouldn’t be miraculous (though it would certainly be mind-blowing!) - -
OR:
if you meant it in the more conventional sense that it would not necessarily be miraculous because …
. . .it would require (In the absence of willing aliens) God to design the flagellum for bacteria … once designed, it is not a miracle that flagellum work correctly and are passed on without much fanfare to each new generation.
Now here is where you and I differ perhaps!:
[-] In a Universe where there are just humans and God … if the ID folks are correct, then it literally took a MIRACLE for bacteria to have working flagella.
^^^ This is definitional. It would literally “take a miracle by God” for bacteria to have flagella!
Obviously it wouldn’t take a miracle for them to pass flagella on to the next generations… but IF the Universe never had aliens… then without God, it would have never happened.
As the protocols of the British House of Commons used to say, “I refer you to the answer I gave earlier”. ID people have a number of views on implementation - and the best keep clear of means either because they are as fuzzy on metaphysics as most TEs, or because they are wise enough to recognise they don’t know.
But for my part, it’s the previously-discussed question of subsuming all God’s activity under the term “miracle” that’s the problem, which in both biblical and common usage has a particular meaning to do with signs and demonstrations of power.
A miracle is something outside the usual run of things - water seldom becomes wine, and storms seldom calm down when rebuked. But if God, as I contend, is constantly involved in the operation of nature, then the extraordinary thing would be something that happened without him. So his activity is better described in some other way, and this we call “special providence” or, perhaps, “creatio continua”.
I’ve mentioned before the link to creation - and creation is not miraculous either, because absolutely everything that exists does so because of God. In fact, let’s speak Christianly about this: John 1: “All things became through him (the Logos), and without him not one thing became which has become.” (my translation of the Greek)
If the flagellum is a “thing”, then it came to its being through Christ, according to the gospel. Indeed, each flagellum has a being, and so the creative power of God in Christ is manifested even in the “passing of flagellae to the next generations.” But since we agree that is not miraculous, then the work of the Logos must involve other categories of action than “miracle.” Yet evolution is somewhat of a different case than generation, form pour point of view, because creative innovation is involved.
Best, then, simply to remember your key final point - “without God” - actually, rather than in some vague nod to his influence - “it would never have happened.”
I came across quite a neat distinction yesterday between “deism” and “theism” in the vernacular sense they’ve been discussed on this thread, on a philsophy of religion site. It seems to draw a nice line in the sand for people to decide on their own positions:
In its more specific sense, theism usually describes a classical form of monotheism which conceives of God as personal, all-powerful and active in his involvement in the world. Such a definition includes traditional Christianity and has been the most common focus of philosophical enquiry.
In contrast to this, the seventeenth century saw the emergence of a rational attitude towards God that became known as deism. As the explanatory power of science increased, thinkers began to trust less in church authority and more in reason and observation of the natural world. To a deist, God is merely the grand architect of the laws of nature: he does not interfere in the world but allows nature to develop according to those laws. As a result, deists reject any form of revelation such as miracles, prophecy and scripture.
(Source)
That source is concerned more with “religion” than the science-faith interface, and doesn’t deal in the “semi-deist” category I’ve described above, as well as using the weasel word “interfere”, which itself comes from a deist mindset: but the underlying distinction makes sense.
Twenty seven different answers across something over 900 pages in Gordon and Dembski’s symposium The Nature of Nature. It’s a good read.
This includes scientists, philosophers and theologians - but they’re all doing philosophy, because ones definition of nature cannot arise from science, but is the presuppositional basis on which science is done.
So Stephen Hawking’s view of nature is only as good as his grasp of philosophy, not his grasp of science.
3 Likes
But why would you think that? Did someone tell you to, or what?
1 Like
But ID people don’t do science!
2 Likes
I wasn’t aware that Francis Crick, Alan Guth, James Moreland, Nancey Murphy, Ronald Numbers, Roger Penrose, Michael Ruse, John Searle, Michael Shermer, Henry Stapp or Howard van Till (and several other contributors to that symposium) were ID people, but you’re obviously better informed.
1 Like
That’s a slightly bizarre comment, Jon. Whom did you have in mind? My Chinese spirit guide? Alien mind parasites? My Russian interrogators, perhaps?
As it happens, the usual mix of Scripture, reason, the tradition of the Church and experience, mixed well for many years, is what makes me maintain God’s active involvement in nature. Deism, atheism and their variants are the only ideologies I know that deny it.
If I had someone in mind I wouldn’t have asked.
Sounds like Calvinism. But “experience” is an interesting one. You have personal experience of God being “constantly involved on the operation of nature”? Caught Him tweaking the laws of physics or sneakily pushing the earth around the sun?
They’re the only ideologies you know that deny God is “constantly involved in the operation of nature”? Allow me to introduce you to Christianity. How about those quotations I provided earlier from two medieval commentators? Do they look deist or atheist to you?