Thursday, November 07, 2013

Star Wars meets Molinism

The theologian William Lane Craig, writing in the book Intelligent Design:William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue, has this to say in defense of theistic evolution:
[The evolutionist] may agree that there are in nature no fundamental telic [goal-oriented] causes, while maintaining that nature itself is constructed with the end in view of the evolution and existence of intelligent life. The view commonly known as theistic evolution would be a religious version of this perspective. (page 62)A designer with knowledge of such counterfactuals could choose to arrange the appropriate boundary conditions and constellation of natural laws that God knew would lead, via a blind evolutionary process, to intelligent life. For these reasons we cannot treat dismissively the theistic evolutionary perspective. (page 63)

Why does Craig attribute the counterfactuals of freedom to a blind evolutionary process? Assuming they exist, wouldn't the counterfactuals of freedom be properties of rational agents? Is Craig an animist or panpsychist? Does he think midi-chlorians inhabit genes?  


  1. Can you elaborate? I assumed the counterfactuals he is referring to were all the universes without intelligent life that the designer (God) wishes to exclude.

  2. Steve,

    I don't have the full context, but maybe he is speaking of counterfactuals of natural indeterministic causation.

    God be with you,