Saving Darwin

[Van]

Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the
best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic
evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,
producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws
which its devel- opment has followed. Thus, he programmed the
process. Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world,
becoming, so to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created
order is free of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of
everything, but only the first living form was directly created. All
the rest of God's creating has been done indirectly. God is the
Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate
cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter,
deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies
that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing
creative process.(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI,
pp480-481)

In my examples, this is the "a" view.

 

[gluadys]

Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the
best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic
evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,
producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws
which its devel- opment has followed. Thus, he programmed the
process. Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world,
becoming, so to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created
order is free of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of
everything, but only the first living form was directly created. All
the rest of God's creating has been done indirectly. God is the
Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate
cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter,
deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies
that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing
creative process.(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI,
pp480-481)

In my examples, this is the "a" view.

Right. And please note the bolded phrase.
This is not the TE view.

the "active sustainer" view where God intervenes and alters the course of His naturalistic processes, is the example "b" view.

And this is not the TE view either.

In the TE view, God is an active sustainor (he does not passively withdraw from the scene as per a) but God is not an intervenor (as per b).

God may actively guide evolution to fulfill the divine purpose, but God does not need to intervene in the process to make it do something it cannot do without assistance.

 

[Mallon]

Right. And please note the bolded phrase.
This is not the TE view.



And this is not the TE view either.

In the TE view, God is an active sustainor (he does not passively withdraw from the scene as per a) but God is not an intervenor (as per b).

God may actively guide evolution to fulfill the divine purpose, but God does not need to intervene in the process to make it do something it cannot do without assistance.

Thank you, gluadys. You have succinctly stated the view of myself and most others here, I suspect. I only wish it weren't falling on the deaf ears of someone more interested in projecting than listening. The point you've just made has been made countless times before in this thread, but to no avail.

 

[Van]

I am begining to realize you folks have difficulty reading. The "a" view is one variety, and you post it is not your variety! Duh Next you say the "b" is not your variety either. LOL
My assertions are from published sources. To say my presentation is not what TE holds because of personal incredulity is without merit.

And let me close with this. To say God is not an intervener is profoundly unbiblical. And oh yes, an active sustainer intervenes. Otherwise he is passive. Got it yet?

 

[Assyrian]

I am begining to realize you folks have difficulty reading.

Yeah, right.

Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the
best way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic
evolution. This is the view that God began the process of evolution,
producing the first matter and implanting within the creation the laws
which its devel- opment has followed. Thus, he programmed the
process. Then he withdrew from active involvement with the world,
becoming, so to speak, Creator emeritus. The progress of the created
order is free of direct influence by God. He is the Creator of
everything, but only the first living form was directly created. All
the rest of God's creating has been done indirectly. God is the
Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the means, the proximate
cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning of matter,
deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies
that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing
creative process.(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI,
pp480-481)

In my examples, this is the "a" view.

One variety of theistic evolution, and only to the extent you can call deism a variety of theism. That is not the normal way the terms are used and it is not our our view of theism or our view of theistic evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks for agreeing with me Assyrian

I didn't.

Please use the dictionary defintion of deism, where God is the passive sustainer and acts through naturalistic processes.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/deism
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
deism /deeiz’m, day-/
• noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM.
— DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective

 

[Van]

You did agree with me, just as you demonstrated with your quotes. I am reminded of Mark Twain's explanation of the demise of one of the twins. He said the baby that had the mark on his shoulder died and that baby was me.

And active sustainer intervenes and a passive sustainer does not intervene.

 

[gluadys]

To say God is not an intervener is profoundly unbiblical.

In general, yes. God actively intervenes in human history. for example, he called Moses to lead the people of Israel out of bondage in Egypt. He actively called the prophets to their mission. He actively called Paul to his apostleship.

And supremely he intervened by sending Jesus to be God with us in human flesh and to reconcile us to himself on the cross.

But God does not need to intervene in natural processes which are already fulfilling the purpose for which he made them.

And oh yes, an active sustainer intervenes. Otherwise he is passive. Got it yet?

Incorrect. To sustain a process is to keep it going, not to intervene in it when it is not able to do what it was made to do. Indeed, the idea that any process God made is somehow unable to fulfill the purpose for which it was made seems profoundly unbiblical.

The Deist view is that God withdraws, steps out of the picture and simply (at most) watches the process play itself out.

The theist view is that the process continues, and continues without need for intervention, because God actively sustains it.

 

[Van]

So God does not need to intervene in natural processes. That is true. But does God intervene in natural processes. Of course. Does parting the red sea ring a bell?

You do know that theist and deist are based on the same word? I presented the deist view, the "a" example and you want to rewrite it, rather than address it. What is up with that? You have God as an active sustainer who does not intervene. Nonsense.

 

[Van]

And I see yet another fiction, the idea that God intervenes because the natural processes "failed" to do what they were intended to do. Rubbish. God intervenes to bring about His purpose and plan. So the very system God created was designed to be altered on occasion. If God did not intervene, that would be a failure of the system.

I do hope I did not break anyone's irony meter with that one.

 

[Assyrian]

You did agree with me, just as you demonstrated with your quotes. I am reminded of Mark Twain's explanation of the demise of one of the twins. He said the baby that had the mark on his shoulder died and that baby was me.

And active sustainer intervenes and a passive sustainer does not intervene.

Acting through naturalistic processes is still intervening. Deism say the creator does not intervene.

So God does not need to intervene in natural processes. That is true. But does God intervene in natural processes. Of course. Does parting the red sea ring a bell?

Are you saying the parting of the Red Sea was God using natural processes like a Tsunami or was it a miraculous event with the water being held back simply by God's power? What about the plague of locusts? Did God use natural processes for the locusts to multiply as locusts do, and use natural wind to blow them across the Red Sea from Arabia to Egypt?

Whether God parted the sea miraculously or used natural processes to send the locusts, it is still God intervening. Deism says God doesn't act that way. He simply created the universe, wound it up and let it run.

 

[gluadys]

So God does not need to intervene in natural processes. That is true. But does God intervene in natural processes. Of course. Does parting the red sea ring a bell?

Parting the Red Sea was not a natural process. That is why it required intervention.


A natural process, actively sustained, does not mean it is sustained by a sequence of myriad miracles.

 

[Mallon]

It strikes me that "intervention" might not be the right word to use in this case. How does God "intervene" in something He already has His hands on, as we all apparently believe?
Perhaps God "redirects" or "supersedes" would be a better way of saying it? Because God "intervenes" certainly does convey an air of deism.

 

[Van]

Folks, we have passive redefined, active redefined and intervene redefined. Words have meaning and when a whole group turns its back and offers inane arguments the discussion is over. The Red Sea according to natural processes would not part, so the parting was an intervention in the natural processes to achieve God purpose and plan.
Those that pretend not to get that have their own agenda.

The "b" model of theistic evolution seems closest to the truth to me, and it can be supported using words as defined in the dictionary. With active meaning active rather than passive, and intervention meaning an active intervention rather than non-intervention in natural processes.

 

[Assyrian]

And if God used natural processes to produce the locusts and natural wind to blow them across the sea to Egypt is that an 'intervention'? If by intervention you mean miracle why not say so?

 

[gluadys]

Folks, we have passive redefined, active redefined and intervene redefined. Words have meaning and when a whole group turns its back and offers inane arguments the discussion is over. The Red Sea according to natural processes would not part, so the parting was an intervention in the natural processes to achieve God purpose and plan.
Those that pretend not to get that have their own agenda.

The "b" model of theistic evolution seems closest to the truth to me, and it can be supported using words as defined in the dictionary. With active meaning active rather than passive, and intervention meaning an active intervention rather than non-intervention in natural processes.

Most arguments hinge in the last analysis on agreeing (or disagreeing) on definitions. As Assyrian says, if by "intervention" you mean "miracle" let's put that on the table.

While we are at it, let's look at the meaning of "miracle". It derives from a Latin word meaning "see" (a meaning it still has in Spanish; "Mira!" ="Look! See!") and the biblical terms it translates mean "sign". What is the point of a sign? It is to indicate something beyond itself. A miracle is that which in a special way points to the power and presence and care of God.

Interestingly, the bible does not make a sharp distinction between signs of a supernatural and a natural order. Some miracles of the bible (like making a donkey talk or an iron axhead float) would seem to involve an intervention which overturned or temporarily suspended the ordinary working of nature. Others, like the arrival of quails in the Israelite camp, seem not to need any change in the order of nature, but merely an organizing of a natural event towards God's purpose. Both are equally miracles.

And in some cases both types of miraculous intervention seem to work together, or it cannot be ascertained which was used.

It was only in late medieval and early modern times that the definition of miracle changed from the biblical emphasis on "sign" to an emphasis on a supernatural event which supercedes or suspends the natural order of things.

IMO we would do well to return to the biblical perspective, but if we do not, we could then set up two categories:

miracle: a sign effected through the suspension of the natural order e.g. the resurrection

intervention: a sign effected through the organization of the natural order to a special purpose. e.g. the plague of locusts in Egypt

What is important to note here is that both are special signs. Although one refers to supernatural means and the other to natural means, neither refers to the ongoing natural routine described to Noah (As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease.)

IOW although the whole of creation is a sign of the creator, elements of ordinary process within creation are not unless they are especially used in order to be a meaningful sign to God's people for a particular purpose.

This brings us to the question of what is God's relation to the ordinary day-by-day processes of nature: those that we do not refer to as miracle or intervention?

The deist view is that God is absent from these ordinary processes.

Now Van wants to refer to this as one of God "passively sustaining" creation. I would like to see this validated by a standard reference to Deism. The references we have seen so far do not imply a sustaining presence, whether passive or active. They speak of God stepping aside, stepping back, withdrawing from involvement with creation, letting creation continue on its own without a divine presence.

In this view "natural" means "absence of God". And it is a short step from here to philosophic naturalism, which denies any sign of God in either sense given above. Nature is all there is. Nature excludes God. Hence there is no God. Or at least no God who has any relation to nature as we know it.

This is the view theists reject. God is always present to nature, in its ordinary day-to-day operations as much as in special signs.

I am not sure that the distinction between passive and active sustainor is valid. It seems an invention for the purpose of shoe-horning all ideas into a pre-conceived dualism of "a" and "b".

To describe the deity of Deism as a passive sustainor seems to attribute a presence of God to creation that Deism denies.

To describe a deity who intervenes as an active sustainor seems to conflate "sustaining" and "intervening" as a single action. But to me these seem to be quite separate actions.

Better I think not to hobble ourselves with only two choices, or at least two choices as Van has described.

When we look at the words "miracle" "intervention" "sustaining providence" and "natural process" we can see them cross-cutting to produce a spectrum of options.

Natural process occurs on its own without the action of a deity to originate or sustain it. (Naturalism)

Natural process needs a deity to originate it, but not to sustain it. (Deism)

Natural process is originated and constantly sustained by God (Theism)

Both Deism and Theism would probably agree that natural process originated through a direct supernatural action i.e. a miracle in the narrowest definition of the term.

So then the question remains, what of the ongoing process? Deism denies that it needs to be sustained. Van equates sustaining natural process with intervening in natural process. Most of the TEs here take the intermediate position that "sustaining" is not the same as "intervening".

Since we agree on rejecting the Deist view that nature is not sustained by the divine presence, the difference here comes down to the meaning of "intervention" and how it relates to "sustaining".

Do these words really have the same meaning, as Van suggests or do they imply different sorts of action on God's part?

Finally, let's note that the position that "sustaining" and "intervening" are not the same thing does not imply that God never intervenes in natural process. The evolutionary creationist who speaks of God's sustaining power upholding the order of nature also agrees that from time to time God also intervenes in a special way. But "intervention" is special and occasional; "sustaining providence" is continuous. And both call for God to be present in, under and through the natural order in a way that deism denies.

And lastly, to get back to the original question: does the initial emergence of life on earth require a special intervention or can it be encompassed within the continual sustaining providence of God i.e. within the natural order as it is?

The answer most of us have given to this question is that we do not know for sure one way or the other.

 

[Van]

Right, the argument that if God did not intervene here, it proves He did not intervene there. Right. LOL

The "b" model of theistic evolution seems closest to the truth to me, and it can be supported using words as defined in the dictionary. With active meaning active rather than passive, and intervention meaning an active intervention rather than non-intervention in natural processes.

 

[Van]

Now we can add Deistic view are being equated with Deism. ROFLOL Does God engage in miracles? Of course. Does Deism deny miracles? Of course. So if evolution occurred completely naturalistically with no supernatural intervention, that would be the "deistic view" of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Now we can add Deistic view are being equated with Deism. ROFLOL Does God engage in miracles? Of course. Does Deism deny miracles? Of course. So if evolution occurred completely naturalistically with no supernatural intervention, that would be the "deistic view" of evolution.

Well this is the false dichotomy subscribed to by both atheists and non-evolutionary creationists:

either nature acts entirely on its own in the absence of God

OR

God intervenes supernaturally in nature's workings.


IOW the only relationship God can have with nature is that of supernatural intervention. Anything else is nature without God.

This is the dichotomy evolutionary creationists reject. Both choices are false choices.


I notice that you did not comment on the identity or non-indentity of "miracle" and "intervention". Nor did you comment on the relationship of "sustaining" and "intervening".

 

[Van]

And I notice you are again redefining the meaning of words. You equate evolution occurring naturalistically as indicating the absence of God. LOL My views are consistent with the published views, your views avoid the meaning of words. I defined what I meant by the Deistic view and you seem unable to comprehend. You invent a supposed dichotomy where none exists. The passive sustainer view, does not indicate the "absence" of God, only the "absence" of supernatural intervention. Your view introduces a false dichotomy.