You have not properly distinguished primary and secondary causation. Only
the latter is amenable to scientific investigation. Primary causation is
not a filler of gaps in the sequence of secondary causes.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:43:27 -0600 "Jon Tandy" <email@example.com>
Several of you have answered my musings on Theistic Evolution, miracles,
etc. with predictable responses defending the traditional explanation of
Theistic Evolution. Let me make clear that I'm not necessarily trying to
pin TE into a corner of explaining specific physical mechanisms of
interaction between God and nature. TEs are much too cautious to be
caught out in that way. My point is not so ambitious as this, but I
think the point is still being missed. Let me try again, a little more
It is generally held that God's "providence" is a real effect, actually
sustaining and in some ways possibly directing the actions in the natural
world. It is also held that science is limited to the study of material
causes, effects, forces, structures, and I would add origins, without
ruling out origins a priori from scientific investigation.
A. It must be the case that either:
1) There is a necessary causal relationship between God's providence
and the existence and actions of at least some things in the natural
2) There exists *no* causal relationship of any sort between God's
providence and the natural world; in this case, the natural world would
exist and function in the absence of God.
The above propositions are not meant to be limited strictly to material
causes and effects. I would say that in the case of A.2., providence is
either an unnecessary explanation or essentially non-existent, because it
has no effect whatsoever on the natural world, and is essentially an
assertion of philosophical naturalism, so I reject it from further
consideration for now.
B. Taking A.1. to be true, and that God's providence does exerts some
real influence over the natural world, then either:
1) God's influence on the natural world is strictly "supernatural"
(outside of nature), in which case science will have no power to
investigate or explain God's action in terms of natural causes and
2) God's influence on the natural world is through natural cause and
effect, but his action is to be forever hidden beyond the reach of our
ability to investigate or detect God's influence with natural scientific
methods (an example would be the direct manipulation of quantum
3) God's influence on the natural world is through natural cause and
effect, which are (at least partially or theoretically) open to
investigation and explanation through natural scientific methods; or,
4) Some combination of the above.
None of the assertions in B. exclude natural (secondary) causes as being
real, effectual influences over natural events. The propositions are
only focused on identifying the character of God's influence, His
providence, on the natural world.
Most of you, from a Theistic Evolutionary standpoint, seem to reject
B.3., at least in principle when it comes to questions such as the
direction of evolution, the formation of "first life" and other things.
The dangers in B.3. are, if we say that God's action are through natural
mechanisms subject to human investigation, we make God the subject of
laboratory experiment, we reduce God to a mechanic tinkering directly
with physical mechanisms, and we potentially make "God of the gaps"
predictions about physical causes under divine control which may turn out
to be false.
Problems with B.2. are less severe from a scientific perspective, but I
assert that they fall into the category of "God of the gaps". For
instance, if God is held to be the direct manipulator of apparently
random quantum events, what happens if decades from now we discover that
there is actually a fundamental set of "natural" laws that govern what
now appears to be simply random probabilistic events? Similar
speculations could be made for the front-loading theory (we might
eventually prove that nature doesn't require divine front-loading to
proceed according to observed natural mechanisms). May never happen, but
it's still an argument from ignorance.
Most of the TEs on this list seem to hold a doctrine of providence that
aligns more with B.1. God's action of providence is supernatural,
meaning that we shouldn't expect to ever discover or observe it through
scientific methods. We can observe the secondary, natural causes and
effects, but it is suggested that God's providence is "continuous" (as in
"continuous creation"), in parallel with and supportive of natural
mechanisms in some unspecified way.
I don't disagree with this necessarily. My point in leading into all
this in the first place was that Theistic Evolution seems to hold that
A.1. is true (providence does indeed have some real influence over
natural events), along with generally B.1. and/or B.2. If B.1. is true,
then God's action to influence the natural world is strictly
supernatural, not natural, and thus should be recognized as "miraculous";
thus, the TE criticism of other forms of creationism relying on
"miracles" is a just little disingenuous. TEs are using unobservable,
providential miracles, rather than observable miracles, but real and
necessary miracles nonetheless. Or else if B.2. is true, that God's
action directly influences natural causes but is hidden behind our
ability to investigate, this is essentially a "God of the gaps" argument
-- it relies on our ignorance of real but presently unknown natural
interactions that are necessary explanations, instead of "purely natural"
(in the ultimate sense) causes.
I'm not saying that providence is incorrect in reality or as a
theological doctrine, nor am I saying that Theistic Evolution is as
vulnerable to criticism as some other forms of creationism. It may be
the best explanation that we can come up with. I am simply trying to
point out that you can't assert a "strictly theological" influence over
natural events without running afoul of some of the same criticisms to
some extent. In the end, it is material things that are being influenced
in some way.
Garage overflowing? Click for steel buildings that are durable and easy to install.
To unsubscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 27 13:51:24 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 27 2009 - 13:51:24 EST