Questions of TE

[juvenissun]

This could be another long series. However, I try to confine it to this thread. Short answers are preferred as they are usually more to the point. Thanks in advance.

The key idea of TE is that God sets the biological evolution process up and let it start somewhere and take His hands off the matter. Is this correct?

If yes, then where is the starting point of biological evolution in TE?

 

[gluadys]

The key idea of TE is that God sets the biological evolution process up and let it start somewhere and take His hands off the matter. Is this correct?

No, that would be Deism, not Theism. Theists would not picture God "taking his hands off the matter".

However, contrary to non-evolutionary creationists, TEs would also not see God intervening at some times and not others.

All natural processes, including evolution, are continually sustained by God.

Just as in meteorology. We don't suggest that God started weather patterns off and then stopped and let them go on their own. Nor do we suggest that God pokes a finger in now and again. But that always God sends the rain and the sun in due season, in predictable cycles so that we can plant and harvest and prepare for the dry or cold seasons by storing what grows in the warm and wet seasons.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, to be fair, some of us do.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between saying God put it in motion and saying that God never intervenes. Natural laws explain the weather. I don't imagine God determining that God is directing each molecule involved in weather -- determining that because Suzy prayed that it will rain in Amarillo and because Johnny prayed it won't rain for the Sunday picnic he wants to go on. The weather has it's courses -- it does what it does because of physical laws. Now, God being God, certainly might intervene. I'm ok with the idea that he sometimes does. God being God can certainly cure cancer. But, by-and-large, nature is designed (yes, designed) to do what it does.

This is distinct from a deist position, as I understand it, because a deist posits that God never intervenes, while these TEs can and do posit that God can and does intervene.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, to be fair, some of us do.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between saying God put it in motion and saying that God never intervenes. Natural laws explain the weather. I don't imagine God determining that God is directing each molecule involved in weather -- determining that because Suzy prayed that it will rain in Amarillo and because Johnny prayed it won't rain for the Sunday picnic he wants to go on. The weather has it's courses -- it does what it does because of physical laws. Now, God being God, certainly might intervene. I'm ok with the idea that he sometimes does. God being God can certainly cure cancer. But, by-and-large, nature is designed (yes, designed) to do what it does.

This is distinct from a deist position, as I understand it, because a deist posits that God never intervenes, while these TEs can and do posit that God can and does intervene.

Thanks, Tinker Grey and Glaudys.

But please go back to address the concern about biological evolution.

 

[shernren]

No juve, I think you should spend more time thinking about Tinker's analogy. It will be really helpful.

Suppose I pray that it will rain, and God answers my prayers by letting it rain.

So where is the "starting point" of meteorology in that example? Where did God stop and meteorology begin?

After all, you are asking the same question of us, are you not? You are asking us where "God stops" and "evolution begins". Well, the short answer is simply that God doesn't stop. Evolution begins somewhere; God has never had His hands off, even when evolution began and took off into this crazy new world ahead of it.

But by all means - if you can tell me where "meteorology begins" in explaining how God controls the weather, then you will have no problem figuring out where "evolution begins" in explaining how God created life.

 

[juvenissun]

No juve, I think you should spend more time thinking about Tinker's analogy. It will be really helpful.

Suppose I pray that it will rain, and God answers my prayers by letting it rain.

So where is the "starting point" of meteorology in that example? Where did God stop and meteorology begin?

After all, you are asking the same question of us, are you not? You are asking us where "God stops" and "evolution begins". Well, the short answer is simply that God doesn't stop. Evolution begins somewhere; God has never had His hands off, even when evolution began and took off into this crazy new world ahead of it.

But by all means - if you can tell me where "meteorology begins" in explaining how God controls the weather, then you will have no problem figuring out where "evolution begins" in explaining how God created life.

So, you are saying that God has been busy at least in the past 1 billion years to guide the development of life though a process which is now seen by scientist as the biological evolution.

An example is that when fish changed to amphibian, it is seen by scientist as a pure process of biological evolution, but the process might, or might not have been intervened by God. And if it were intervened by God, scientist will have no way to tell it from the same process happened to another species which were not intervened.

But, on the other hand, TE "believes" God does intervene the evolutional process at an unknown quantity and frequency. Chances are that this quantity and frequency are significant.

Is this correct?

 

[shernren]

So, you are saying that God has been busy at least in the past 1 billion years to guide the development of life though a process which is now seen by scientist as the biological evolution.

An example is that when fish changed to amphibian, it is seen by scientist as a pure process of biological evolution, but the process might, or might not have been intervened by God. And if it were intervened by God, scientist will have no way to tell it from the same process happened to another species which were not intervened.

But, on the other hand, TE "believes" God does intervene the evolutional process at an unknown quantity and frequency. Chances are that this quantity and frequency are significant.

Is this correct?

I've written a meditation on this before, here, which sets out what I think about this at present quite clearly.

Essentially, you are seeing the default position of evolution as being a godless process. I.e., evolution doesn't need God; the fact of its regularity means that God in some sense is not "required" in evolution.

But think about what you've just said as a theist. Would you say that of any other process? Would you say that God is not "required" for physics? For chemistry? Indeed, for the very continued existence of creation?

Surely the default position to you should be that God is in everything, making all things happen for the good of those who love Him.

 

[crawfish]

Here's an analogy.

If I set up a path of dominoes where the last one to fall rings a bell, am I any less responsible for the ringing of the bell because after setting up the path all I did was push the first one? Would you say that it was not really my doing because I did not guide each domino to fall - that part was accomplished by gravity?

No, I don't think so. I created the path that would lead to the inevitable conclusion. I understood the physics enough to ensure that my path would not fail, and used them to my purpose.

To say evolution removes God from the equation because the process is "natural", or to remove God from anything because we can come up with a natural explanation, belies the power and majesty of God.

 

[Melethiel]

I agree with gluadys - God is continually sustaining His creation. It is impossible to separate "natural processes" from "God's intervention".

 

[Mallon]

I want to add my voice to the chorus of evolutionary creationists who say God is intimately and continually involved with the unfolding of His creation. Therefore, I think juvenissun's idea that God is hands-off when it comes to evolution is wrong, for much the same reason that shernren's analogy demonstrates.
Are God's actions in evolution measurable? No. How could ever hope to measure them? But this is not a problem for people with faith.

 

[gluadys]

And if it were intervened by God, scientist will have no way to tell it from the same process happened to another species which were not intervened.

But, on the other hand, TE "believes" God does intervene the evolutional process at an unknown quantity and frequency. Chances are that this quantity and frequency are significant.

Is this correct?

For me, it goes a little deeper than that. What I disagree with is the notion that anything happens without the sustaining power of God to make it happen.

Now this doesn't mean that God necessarily"directs" a process to a particular goal, but rather that God's sustaining power is essential for the process to happen at all.

Here is an example: in a laboratory you can set up a system to break water into its constituent molecules of hydrogen and oxygen.

Nothing supernatural, no "intervention" of God is required to explain what is happening. Does this mean that it is happening apart from God?

You are asking your questions on the pre-supposition that the answer is "yes"--that natural processes happen apart from God. He sets them in motion and leaves the room and they continue in his absence.

But is this pre-supposition correct? How do we know that God has left the room and nature is continuing on its way in his absence? How do we know that nature CAN continue on its way in his absence?

For all we know, God never leaves the room and the process continues BECAUSE God never leaves the room. For all we know, the presence of God, the active support of God's power, is needed to make any natural process happen, quite apart from whether or not he directs it to a particular goal.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I appreciate the input from my fellow TEs. I now understand what gluadys is saying and that it is not different from what I'm saying.

Thanks also to shernren for making my point more clear -- saying what I should have said in the first place.

 

[Molal]

Here's an analogy.

If I set up a path of dominoes where the last one to fall rings a bell, am I any less responsible for the ringing of the bell because after setting up the path all I did was push the first one? Would you say that it was not really my doing because I did not guide each domino to fall - that part was accomplished by gravity?

No, I don't think so. I created the path that would lead to the inevitable conclusion. I understood the physics enough to ensure that my path would not fail, and used them to my purpose.

To say evolution removes God from the equation because the process is "natural", or to remove God from anything because we can come up with a natural explanation, belies the power and majesty of God.

Thank you Crawfish - that was enlightening!

 

[juvenissun]

So, you are saying that God has been busy at least in the past 1 billion years to guide the development of life though a process which is now seen by scientist as the biological evolution.

An example is that when fish changed to amphibian, it is seen by scientist as a pure process of biological evolution, but the process might, or might not have been intervened by God. And if it were intervened by God, scientist will have no way to tell it from the same process happened to another species which were not intervened.

But, on the other hand, TE "believes" God does intervene the evolutional process at an unknown quantity and frequency. Chances are that this quantity and frequency are significant.

Is this correct?

It is great. I appreciate the education by all of you.

So, let me try again:

The process of biological evolution is an apparently natural process. In fact, it was initiated by God, developed by God's guidance, and is continuously monitored by God. And, the process has a goal, which is set up at the beginning by God.

Is this right? Or is there too much God in it?

 

[Mallon]

The process of biological evolution is an apparently natural process. In fact, it was initiated by God, developed by God's guidance, and is continuously monitored by God. And, the process has a goal, which is set up at the beginning by God.

Is this right? Or is there too much God in it?

The problem that evolutionary creationists have with other origins explanations isn't that they have "too much God" in them. You can never have too much God! It's that they assume so many miracles (which cannot be detected by science) when simpler, observable, and natural explanations are already available. God is just as responsible for natural phenomena as He is for miraculous ones. Either way, evolutionary creationists give God 100% of the glory.

 

[Melethiel]

There is no "too much God" - the main thing is that "God" is not some variable you can plug into an equation and say "here is God" or "God is responsible for this". Rather, God continuously sustains the whole of creation, which works according to the predictable laws He set up.

 

[gluadys]

It is great. I appreciate the education by all of you.

So, let me try again:

The process of biological evolution is an apparently natural process. In fact, it was initiated by God, developed by God's guidance, and is continuously monitored by God. And, the process has a goal, which is set up at the beginning by God.

Is this right? Or is there too much God in it?

It would not be so much that the process has a goal as that God has a goal for the process.

Science has not been able to find a teleology in the mechanisms of evolution.

 

[crawfish]

My problem with most of the non-TE theologies is that they seem to take God OUT of natural processes. I know they won't admit it, but when you put so much emphasis on supernatural occurrences as a sign of God's power then it only follows that you downplay the natural ones.

I believe that the truth is, we're only now beginning to discover the true genius of God's handiwork. How does the parting of the Red Sea compare to the creation of the vastness of the universe we are now seeing? How does a surviving in a fiery furnace compare to the glory of the atom? I feel that while God's miracles show that He is above the laws He has created, it is the natural that best shows God's majesty.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It is great. I appreciate the education by all of you.

So, let me try again:

The process of biological evolution is an apparently natural process. In fact, it was initiated by God, developed by God's guidance, and is continuously monitored by God. And, the process has a goal, which is set up at the beginning by God.

Is this right? Or is there too much God in it?

No such thing as too much God. However, I'd disagree on the idea of a "goal," except to say that the goal may have been to create a spiritually aware being capable of having a relationship with God... In that case, the goal has been accomplished with homo sapiens. Anything that happens beyond that is simply tweaking the design.

 

[juvenissun]

This could be another long series. However, I try to confine it to this thread. Short answers are preferred as they are usually more to the point. Thanks in advance.

The key idea of TE is that God sets the biological evolution process up and let it start somewhere and take His hands off the matter. Is this correct?

If yes, then where is the starting point of biological evolution in TE?

I would like to ask the second question before I go back to examine further on the idea of Theistic Evolution.

Is there a close relationship between TE and literal/figurative interpretation of Bible? Is TE and literal reading of Bible incompatible? That means, if we read the Bible literally, then TE will not be valid.

Or, TE is not that much related to the way of Bible interpretation?

Noticed that in this question, the scope of Bible interpretation is significantly wider than just the part which concerned biological evolution. It is possible that if we read the Bible literally, then the idea of TE will become faulty. But on the other hand, the truth of TE does not have to deny the literal reading of Bible in 100%. Is it possible that TE could read some Bible verses literally, and some critical verses (such as Gen:1) figuratively? Or is it necessary that because some verses of the Bible "have to" be read figurative, so that all ambiguous Bible verses should all be read figuratively?

When consider your reply, please keep a close tie between the concept of TE and the need of figurative Bible reading. A general discussion of literal/figurative reading of Bible should go to some other threads.