The contributors to Biologos act as if theistic evolution is the thinking man’s alternative to creationism. According to Peter Enns, “Evolution persuasively accounts for the natural world. Scientists recognize its claims as having tremendous explanatory power…Closing off discussion is done in the name of protecting the masses from losing their faith. The irony is that the Church’s failure to encourage open dialogue has led many to relinquish their faith altogether. Such is the case when protecting religious coherence takes priority over preparing the church for the future.”
http://biologos.org/blog/why-we-fight-about-this/
But even if, for the sake of argument, we accept his favorable characterization of evolutionary theory, one of the problems with his proposed alternative is the illogical move from macroevolution to theistic evolution. What does the explanatory power of evolution have to do with theistic evolution?
Consider the results of a recent poll: “Our study was the first poll to focus solely on eminent evolutionists and their views of religion. As a dissertation project, one of us (Graffin) prepared and sent a detailed questionnaire on evolution and religion to 271 professional evolutionary scientists elected to membership in 28 honorific national academies around the world, and 149 (55 percent) answered the questionnaire. All of them listed evolution (specifically organismic), phylogenetics, population biology/genetics, paleontology/paleoecology/paleobiology, systematics, organismal adaptation or fitness as at least one of their research interests. Graffin also interviewed 12 prestigious evolutionists from the sample group on the relation between modern evolutionary biology and religion…Perhaps the most revealing question in the poll asked the respondent to choose the letter that most closely represented where her views belonged on a ternary diagram. The great majority of the evolutionists polled (78 percent) chose A, billing themselves as pure naturalists. Only two out of 149 described themselves as full theists (F), two as more theist than naturalist (D) and three as theistic naturalists (B). Taken together, the advocacy of any degree of theism is the lowest percentage measured in any poll of biologists' beliefs so far (4.7 percent).”
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3747,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
Of course, this doesn’t disprove theistic evolution. But it surely undercuts any prima facie presumption in favor of theistic evolution, as over against naturalistic evolution. If the church embraces macroevolution, how is that a backstop against apostasy?
Peter Enns: "The irony is that the Church’s failure to encourage open dialogue has led many to relinquish their faith altogether."
ReplyDeletevs.
Steve Hays: "If the church embraces macroevolution, how is that a backstop against apostasy?"
------
As a secondary point, both Peter and Steve argue that apostasy often occurs when folks take the other position. Q: So which happens more often?
I don't know, but my strong guess is that embracing evolution more often leads to apostasy than does the embrace of ID or creationism as the explanation for the origins of the universe and of life on earth.
So it's no surprise that I side with Steve Hays on this one.
Truth... said: "my strong guess is that embracing evolution more often leads to apostasy than does the embrace of ID or creationism".
ReplyDeleteOf course. I think the argument is that some Christians feel forced to choose between Christianity and evolution and, feeling the evidence too strong in the case of the latter, abandon their faith. The contention, I believe, is that making evolution incompatible with Christianity forces those who accept the former to apostasise.
I would hope Steve can clarify his line of reasoning in this post. I believe that the science does not point to theistic evolution in just the same way that it does not point to naturalistic evolution, so I don't see why I would be forced to accept the latter even if I'm committed to accepting whatever the prevailing science is. (I am not, for the record.)
Does the 'naturalistic' circuit of water in the environment undercut the belief in God? (Who makes rain pour and clouds gather, and Who voices his lightining and thunder from heaven?)
ReplyDeleteIf not, then why should evolution?
And besides, if things-popping-up-into-existence is something repeatable (big bang AND creation of every species 'ex nihilo'), the reaction of the atheist would simply be: "well, it must be a naturalistic law of mother nature, and there's no need to appeal to a magical sky-daddy to accept it" -- in other words, the ateist still wouldn't believe, just like he also doesn't believe that the big bang is the work of a Creator (although he is forced by science itself to accept as fact that every-thing came from no-thing).
The key question for believers in all of this (at least in my opinion) is: "How reliable is the Word of God?" or put another way "Did God really say...?".
ReplyDeleteIt is true that there are Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists. And there is evidence both for and against either position.
To my understanding, Theistic Evolution attempts to assign God the role of authoring the mechanics of macro evolution. But is there an exegetical argument provided for this view or is it simply a rationale employed by those who are in the process of apostatizing by the abandonment of belief in the Word of God?
I know that Christ is the Capstone of all that is. He is our greatest evidence for all that there is.
ReplyDeleteCan we leave Christ on the side-line when we genuinely,--with heats that really want to know the facts and truth,-- study evolution and such things?
Srnec said...
ReplyDelete"I would hope Steve can clarify his line of reasoning in this post. I believe that the science does not point to theistic evolution in just the same way that it does not point to naturalistic evolution, so I don't see why I would be forced to accept the latter even if I'm committed to accepting whatever the prevailing science is. (I am not, for the record.)"
That assumes the general evidence for macroevolution is neutral on the specific distinction between theistic evolution and naturalistic evolution.
If, however, only 2 out of 149 evolutionary biologists identified themselves as "full theists," then this suggests that when most professionals in the field view the evidence, they don't merely see evidence of macroevolution, but evidence for naturalistic evolution. For them, the evidence is pointing in a naturalistic direction. Indeed, they have an evolutionary explanation for religion as well. As the same survey put it:
"These eminent evolutionists view religion as a sociobiological feature of human culture, a part of human evolution...Today, as our results show, the commonly held view among evolutionists is that religion is subsumed under sociobiological evolution.. Seeing religion as a sociobiological feature of human evolution, while a plausible hypothesis, denies all worth to religious truths."
I'd add that many theistic evolutionists are critical of intelligent design theory because they don't think you can (or should) detect evidence of God's hand in the evolutionary process. So even on their own terms, that would suggest that evolution is a self-contained process that requires no input from a Deity.
Srnec said:
ReplyDelete"I think the argument is that some Christians feel forced to choose between Christianity and evolution and, feeling the evidence too strong in the case of the latter, abandon their faith. The contention, I believe, is that making evolution incompatible with Christianity forces those who accept the former to apostasise."
Me:
There's a good reason for the incompatibility. Acceptance of neo-Darwinian evolution is founded upon belief in Methodological Naturalism.
When MN is applied to the Resurrection of Jesus, then the belief in the Resurrection disappears as naturalistic explanations become more 'acceptable'.
Christianity dies.
Sometimes...
ReplyDeleteI detest theistic evolutionists even more than atheistic evolutionists.
Does anybody else do that sometimes?
I detest theistic evolutionists even more than atheistic evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteYou would detest the TEs less if they did the careful theology that the Old Princeton men did. (Even Warfield had trouble putting the pieces together.) It as if the BioLogos guys are trying to have classical theism together with a mechanistic, deistic view of origins.
I don't see BioLogos as a Christian movement. It was founded by a Universalist and has the "freethinker" Howard Van Till in its ranks.
Let's not also forget that they also have one Open Theist (i.e. Greg Boyd) and one Process Theist (i.e. Ken Miller), and the latter doesn't even believe in a historical virgin birth of Christ.
ReplyDeleteSteve said: "That assumes the general evidence for macroevolution is neutral on the specific distinction between theistic evolution and naturalistic evolution."
ReplyDeleteYes, and I think precisely that. Do you think the evidence adduced in favour of evolution also favours naturalism? I would deny outright any possibility of a "scientific" argument for naturalism.
Steve also said: "If, however, only 2 out of 149 evolutionary biologists identified themselves as 'full theists,' then this suggests that when most professionals in the field view the evidence, they don't merely see evidence of macroevolution, but evidence for naturalistic evolution. For them, the evidence is pointing in a naturalistic direction. Indeed, they have an evolutionary explanation for religion as well."
But we don't interpret evidence by polling. They see evidence for naturalism because they have naturalist assumptions. They see such evidence even in matters where the science is completely uncontroversial in Christian circles. The evolutionary explanation of religion, as you know, has no evidence in its favour whatsoever. It is a hypothesis without observations, without data. (I read Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and the level of ignorance stunned me. I was hoping that, as a philosopher, he would have had useful things to say about the topic.)
Finally, Steve said: "I'd add that many theistic evolutionists are critical of intelligent design theory because they don't think you can (or should) detect evidence of God's hand in the evolutionary process. So even on their own terms, that would suggest that evolution is a self-contained process that requires no input from a Deity."
The inability to detect supernatural or miraculous events in the evolutionary record would not suggest that evolution is self-contained, merely that the way in which God has intervened is not detectable. I don't think there would necessarily be any way of detecting the Virgin Birth. That aside, my recollection from Collins's "Language of God" is that he believes the "why is there something rather than nothing" question, which obviously precedes questions about the evolution of something, is not answerable without recourse to God. Events within the self-contained evolutionary system may not require recourse to a divine explanation (on their hypothesis, not mine), but the existence (and nature) of this system would require an external (divine) explanation.
That aside, my recollection from Collins's "Language of God" is that he believes the "why is there something rather than nothing" question, which obviously precedes questions about the evolution of something, is not answerable without recourse to God.
ReplyDeleteExcept that anybody can accuse this of being a "God of The Gaps" argument. In fact, Collins' colleagues at BioLogos dismiss ID on this exact point. So why is it OK to look for signs of design in metaphysics but not origins?
SRNEC SAID:
ReplyDelete"Do you think the evidence adduced in favour of evolution also favours naturalism?"
Sure. On an evolutionary reading of the natural record, we witness an experimental, trial-and-error process at work as nature tries out difference designs and adaptive strategies to find out which ones, if any, succeed. A blind, fumbling procedure which, lacking reason and forethought, can only advance by brute process of elimination.
"But we don't interpret evidence by polling. They see evidence for naturalism because they have naturalist assumptions."
Sometimes. But many other times it goes in the opposite direction. The stereotypical narrative of the boy, raised in church, who believes what he was told, only to lose his faith when he heads to college and studies science.
"The inability to detect supernatural or miraculous events in the evolutionary record would not suggest that evolution is self-contained, merely that the way in which God has intervened is not detectable."
According to the standard evolutionary paradigm, natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to account for the outcome. That renders a theistic explanation superfluous and obsolete.
"I don't think there would necessarily be any way of detecting the Virgin Birth."
Well, since they didn't have IVF back then, if Mary conceived a child without having been impregnated by a man, then what's the alternative explanation–consistent with natural causes?
I'd add that on an evolutionary reading of the natural record, natural selection wasn't leading up to modern man as the end-result of the age-long process. Rather, modern man is just another stage in the ongoing process of human evolution. We're simply the Australopithecus of our particular segment in the evolutionary continuum. So you can't graft Christian theology onto that trunk. At best, it would be consistent with a minimal theism like process theology.
ReplyDelete"On an evolutionary reading of the natural record, we witness an experimental, trial-and-error process at work as nature tries out difference designs and adaptive strategies to find out which ones, if any, succeed. A blind, fumbling procedure which, lacking reason and forethought, can only advance by brute process of elimination."
ReplyDeleteThis, Steve, would of course very nicely accord with the undeniable process of natural selection Taking this clear fact into consideration, we could then justifiably re-align your statement to concord with any self-contained system God has implemented into his creation.
Indeed, on *any* relevant reading of the natural record we thus find that God has made his creatures in such a way as to allow them to adapt to their environment through said process of natural selection.
I'm not sure about you, but I find there to be no fault in God's decision to have allowed the nature of his creation's natural systems to be such that they allow adaptability to environmental stresses. I then find it unfortunate that you would describe his evident decision in nature to be any sort of "fumbling procedure lacking reason and forethought".
"According to the standard evolutionary paradigm, natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to account for the outcome. That renders a theistic explanation superfluous and obsolete."
Given the preemptive reasons from natural theology we are inductively justified in not precluding the possibility that God intervenes in his creation in such a way that we can understand and comprehend, namely, the exact way he seems to have structured everything else in nature (hence the very existence of science itself). Whether most biologists see evolution as incompatible with theology is irrelevant to whether it actually is, which, as I contend, it is not.
Or to quote philosopher of science Robert John Russel,
"God [doesn't necessarily always act]in such a way which violates or suspends the known laws of nature but rather in a way which is intelligible from a theological perspective in light of them (though without such as theological perspective we cannot recognize the effects of God's actions as, in fact, the effects of God's action). This account of
divine action does not rely on a gap in our current scientific knowledge but on the positive content of that knowledge. Because of the knowledge, our account of divine action does not require God to create gaps in an otherwise closed causal order but relies on the intrinsically open character of natural processes."
(Cosmology-From Alpha to Omega)
"I'd add that on an evolutionary reading of the natural record, natural selection wasn't leading up to modern man as the end-result of the age-long process. Rather, modern man is just another stage in the ongoing process of human evolution. We're simply the Australopithecus of our particular segment in the evolutionary continuum. So you can't graft Christian theology onto that trunk. At best, it would be consistent with a minimal theism like process theology."
And I would like to add that this mysterious coercive "reading" of the evolutionary record you are again referring to is only mutually exclusive with a coherent view of the philosophy of science because you seem so dearly to wish it to be so.
On any scientific account of human origins, including those necessary for Old Earth Creationism to be as scientifically aware as it wishes to be, there is no exhaustive, definitive biological schema as to what can and can't be a human being.
As such, we cannot reasonably limit the range of the sentient hominids under God's grace merely to that which meets our current cultural/theological understanding of a what a human is. To do so would be to enact a theology whose justification is done by a fumbling procedure lacking any reason or forethought, the very thing you seem to be accusing the theistic evolutionist view of God as doing.
I'd like to add that there is no fault in crediting to God the ability to achieve his ultimate sotierological, eschatological purposes through the natural process of evolution.
ReplyDeleteCOWLOOGI SAID:
ReplyDelete“This, Steve, would of course very nicely accord with the undeniable process of natural selection Taking this clear fact into consideration, we could then justifiably re-align your statement to concord with any self-contained system God has implemented into his creation.”
Well, that’s a fallacious inference. It’s not as though a “self-contained system” has to present the appearance of an experimental, trial-and-error process.
“Indeed, on *any* relevant reading of the natural record we thus find that God has made his creatures in such a way as to allow them to adapt to their environment through said process of natural selection.”
That’s a massive equivocation. There’s a basic difference between microevolutionary adaptability in YEC/OEC, and undirected adaptation in macroevolution.
“I then find it unfortunate that you would describe his evident decision in nature to be any sort of "fumbling procedure lacking reason and forethought.’”
Theistic evolutionary opponents of intelligent design theory deny that God’s intentions are “evident” in nature.
Moreover, they operate according to methodological naturalism, which banishes teleological explanations from science.
“Given the preemptive reasons from natural theology we are inductively justified in not precluding the possibility that God intervenes in his creation in such a way that we can understand and comprehend, namely, the exact way he seems to have structured everything else in nature (hence the very existence of science itself).”
Except that naturalistic evolution presents an alternative explanation to natural theology. For instance, read Gould’s analysis of natural theology in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
And since, to reiterate my previous point, TE typically adopts methodological naturalism, it cannot incorporate natural theology in its scientific interpretation of the natural record.
“Or to quote philosopher of science Robert John Russel, ‘God [doesn't necessarily always act]in such a way which violates or suspends the known laws of nature but rather in a way which is intelligible from a theological perspective in light of them (though without such as theological perspective we cannot recognize the effects of God's actions as, in fact, the effects of God's action).’”
So you’re admitting that a natural theistic evolutionary interpretation of the evolutionary process is entirely extrinsic to the natural record.
Cont. “And I would like to add that this mysterious coercive ‘reading’ of the evolutionary record you are again referring to is only mutually exclusive with a coherent view of the philosophy of science because you seem so dearly to wish it to be so.”
ReplyDeleteAn assertion bereft of argument.
“On any scientific account of human origins, including those necessary for Old Earth Creationism to be as scientifically aware as it wishes to be, there is no exhaustive, definitive biological schema as to what can and can't be a human being.”
The pertinent question from the standpoint of Christian theism is whether macroevolution is consistent with the Biblical doctrine of man.
“As such, we cannot reasonably limit the range of the sentient hominids under God's grace merely to that which meets our current cultural/theological understanding of a what a human is.”
You have unwittingly corroborated my point that theistic evolution undermines rather than underwrites a distinctively Christian anthropology.
“To do so would be to enact a theology whose justification is done by a fumbling procedure lacking any reason or forethought, the very thing you seem to be accusing the theistic evolutionist view of God as doing.”
Your effort to draw a cute analogy is fallacious. The procedure for the identification of man under God’s grace is the Biblical identification of man–not the theory of macroevolution.
So, yes, you can jettison all that and take refuge in a compromise position like theistic evolution, which isn’t consistently Christian or consistently scientific.
“I'd like to add that there is no fault in crediting to God the ability to achieve his ultimate sotierological, eschatological purposes through the natural process of evolution.”
As long as you equate theology with creative writing, so that you are free to credit fictitious methods to your fictitious deity.
Steve, while I do still have respect for you as a writer and thinker, I'm bothered by the tone of your reply.
ReplyDeleteMy "fictitious deity"? Are you exactly trying to suggest my God, the Triune God, Creator of the universe, whom I wholeheartedly believe sent his Son down to die for us, is fictitious? I would affirm probably every essential doctrine you do, the trinity, Christ's deity, grace through faith, and so on (though I'm not a Calvinist, I wouldn't in any way say that "your" God is a fiction, I would say that we are both saved through grace by the same God, just that you have a different view of his methods of salvation.)
I'm no "minimal theist" or "process theist", whether or not you are correct in describing some of the members of Biologos as being such. My intent was to defend theistic evolution (theistic evolution in my view being the belief that God used evolution as a means to create) from the points you raised against it.
I believe that God interacts with nature every bit as you do, and I don't deny that he may suspend certain laws that he has structured within it. The mere clarification is that in respect to God's role in macro/micro evolution, his points of intervention aren’t always (if necessarily ever) scientifically detectable. I claim agnosticism on whether or not initial life on earth was created by special act, or through the natural means he has used to create every other creature (so I have no inherent bias against intelligent design, I quite like Stephen C. Meyer.) It seems to me that this is an issue of the Hands forming the clay over a period of time, or zapping it into existence.
Again, perhaps I should have clarified this in my previous post, but I'm not defending the views of some of the Biologos staff that I don't hold, I'm merely defending my view of theistic evolution, which doesn't at all preclude Divine actions at specific moments in time.
You bring up "methodological naturalism", which I believe is unjustified in many, if not all or most instances. But I don't think methodological naturalism is a necessary feature of evolutionary theory, even if it was the means used to come by it.
I mean, many parts of many different sciences could have assumed methodological naturalism, but that doesn't necessarily entail that their results are false, just that there is a possibility they came to the wrong conclusion since they weren't willing to appeal to anything but that which we know exists. (Again, maybe this is the case with biogenesis; I find many arguments by the incredibly intelligent individuals Meyer, Dembski, and Behe to be compelling.)
"So, yes, you can jettison all that and take refuge in a compromise position like theistic evolution, which isn’t consistently Christian or consistently scientific.”
ReplyDeleteOh judgmental Steve, do, please do, tell me how exactly my view of theistic evolution doesn't align with what you would consider "consistently Christian" or "consistently scientific". I don't think theistic evolution has to be much more of a compromise than that which Young Earth Creationists prescribe to Old Earth Creationists, that compromise being the act of letting God’s natural revelation through science help us better understands his Word and nature itself.
"Well, that’s a fallacious inference. It’s not as though a “self-contained system” has to present the appearance of an experimental, trial-and-error process. "
And it's certainly not as though a self contained system God implemented into creation could not have had a trial-and-error system. Microevolution in itself can be described as a trial-and-error process, so I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to drive here.
"The pertinent question from the standpoint of Christian theism is whether macroevolution is consistent with the Biblical doctrine of man."
And in my opinion this pertinent question would extend to whether or not we have full correct understanding of "the"(as if there aren't more than one) doctrine of man. I believe this is what many people at Biologos, like N.T. Wright, have been trying to say in the first place. This statement I make in light of the fact that what may have been considered “the” Biblical doctrine of creation in some circles was changed to align with natural revelation, that revelation being our discovery of methods like carbon and uranium dating.
"That’s a massive equivocation. There’s a basic difference between microevolutionary adaptability in YEC/OEC, and undirected adaptation in macroevolution."
Did I not say that I believed macroevolution was directed by God in many ways? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm positive I did. On most accounts I'm aware of, macroevolution is not in any way much more than microevolution on a scale extending back billions of years. Of course I’m aware of the claim that microevolution never creates any”new” information, but I don’t believe this claim to be correct.
"So you’re admitting that a natural theistic evolutionary interpretation of the evolutionary process is entirely extrinsic to the natural record."
ReplyDeleteNo. I'm honestly not sure how you derived this from the quote, perhaps you could clarify.
"Except that naturalistic evolution presents an alternative explanation to natural theology. For instance, read Gould’s analysis of natural theology in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
Maybe this is the issue. I don't believe evolution is a solely naturalistic process. Even if it is, I don't think the fact that it was *completely* a naturalistic process in any way nullifies our philosophical arguments such as the Kalam, the ontological argument, the teological argument, and etc. I think you are referring to Stephen Jay Gould, who was an atheist. I wouldn’t put any vital credence to his analysis of the issue.
“Theistic evolutionary opponents of intelligent design theory deny that God’s intentions are “evident” in nature.
Moreover, they operate according to methodological naturalism, which banishes teleological explanations from science.”
On that last point, Robbin Collins himself, being arguably one of the leading proponents of the teological argument, has an entire paper defending theistic evolution freely available on his website(http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Evolution/Evolution%20and%20Original%20Sin.doc).
On this note as well, please watch William Lane Craig's short analysis of the situation I think is incredibly well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQsaiMcPLc . He in this video says that even if he doesn’t believe in evolution, he doesn’t think it needs to be incompatible with Christian theism, since, even if evolution did occur, the fact that it occurred in itself would be a miracle (see Robin Collins, as well as the book WLC mentions in the video on this point).
So I don't think it can be clearly said that the majority of theistic evolutionists hold the view that methodological naturalism is completely justified in every instance or any instance at all. While individuals like Ken Miller may disagree, his view is one I don't think we can say represents the whole.
“And since, to reiterate my previous point, TE typically adopts methodological naturalism, it cannot incorporate natural theology in its scientific interpretation of the natural record."
Typically or not, this isn’t the view of theistic evolution I’m defending. I wouldn’t even agree with your claim that it is “typical” of theistic evolutionists to adopt methodological naturalism.
"As long as you equate theology with creative writing, so that you are free to credit fictitious methods to your fictitious deity."
And you, my dear brother in Christ, are equally welcome to credit apostasy with said methods and writing.