Credit where credit is due, since coming under the direction of Deborah Haarsma, the Biologos.org website has managed tone down the rhetoric against its opponents, even if little has changed in the views presented there. Steven Meyer was recently given space to respond to his critics, and all in all I think the exchange was healthy.
Meyer’s main point in his response was that the folks at Biologos are committed to methodological naturalism and that is the primary thing that separates them from other theistic viewpoints. Evidence of both Biologos more conciliatory tone and commitment to naturalism are apparent in the statement quoted below. (More)
First, there is a general statement of belief in God as Creator, but coupled with a statement of belief in evolutionary science.
"At BioLogos, we present the Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins. Like all Christians, we fully affirm that God is the creator of all life—including human beings in his image. We fully affirm that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. We also accept the science of evolution as the best description for how God brought about the diversity of life on earth."
I find that honest and straightforward. Second is a statement intended to reject scientism and what others would describe as philosophical naturalism.
"But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too."
I do think this statement is honest as well, but ultimately one end of a line of thought that is ultimately inconsistent. I have said before that one can hardly be a Christian and deny the miraculous. What is the point of Christianity without the resurrection?
The statement offers the following definition of Young Earth Creationism:
"According to Young Earth Creationism (YEC), a faithful reading of Scripture commits Christians to accepting that the earth is young, between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. YEC claims that Scripture is not compatible with the idea that humans share common ancestry with other life forms on earth, and most YEC proponents feel that evolution is a direct threat to Christianity."
All in all, this is a fair description. It would be helped by a phrase indicating a YEC commitment to the historicity of Adam and the Fall, more central I think than the age of the earth, but still a fair description.
Old Earth Creation is also described reasonably fairly.
"According to Old Earth Creationism (OEC), the scientific evidence for the great age of the earth (4.6 billion years) and universe (13.7 billion years) is strong. This view typically maintains that the days of creation in Genesis 1 each refer to long periods of time. OEC does not accept the common ancestry of all life forms, often opting instead for a theory of progressive creation in which God miraculously created new species at key moments in the history of life."
I’m sure there are variations and nuances that would not fit neatly into this definition, but the heart of the matter is stated adequately.
Interestingly, the statement moves to Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creation before describing Intelligent Design:
"We at BioLogos maintain that the scientific evidence from many branches of modern science would make little sense apart from common ancestry and evolution. We also believe that the cultural and theological contexts in which Scripture was written are key for determining the best interpretation of the creation accounts."
The two key elements then are that they trust the science and believe Ancient Near Eastern context is the key to reading scripture in a way that will not lead to a conflict with science.
Then comes a description of ID that seems to try again to be fair but is not quite accurate:
"In contrast to EC, YEC, and OEC, Intelligent Design(ID) does not explicitly align itself with Christianity. It claims that the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe and of the development of life is a testable scientific hypothesis. ID arguments often point to parts of scientific theories where there is no consensus and claim that the best solution is to appeal to the direct action of an intelligent designer."
The second half of the statement is, I think, wrong. “Direct action” is not necessarily related to “design”. It may be, but it need not be. But the fact that the statement gives a nod to the notion of ID providing a “testable scientific hypothesis” is a vast improvement over the reams of material that insist ID is flatly not science.
But then comes the inconsistency, confirming Steven Meyer’s suspicion:
"At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena. We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe."
The rub is right there. While affirming earlier in the statement that miracles can occur, the default position at Biologos in dealing with origins is to seek natural explanations, in fact to "not give up" on seeking natural explanations. The question should be obvious. If, as stated earlier it is not true that “all of reality can in principle be explained by science” and that “supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too”, then why should one limit options to natural explanations when a) one has already affirmed that miracles can occur and b) many of the phenomena of nature do not merely lack a natural explanation at present, but have all of the hallmarks of design poised against insurmountable obstacles to random variation leading to functional outcomes?
ID, OEC and YEC would all suggest that we know what design looks like, for example, because we observe on a daily basis any number of things that we know to be designed and they all are the product of intelligence. So when looking at the appearance of design in nature, any purely natural explanations which exclude intelligence from the outset simply ignore what we know about the nature of design itself. It makes sense for a non-theist who believes nothing exists but material cause and effect to look endlessly for natural explanations and "never give up" such a quest. It does not make sense for one who believes in a creator and believes in the miraculous to impose such intellectual constraints on oneself.
ID would suggest that seeking natural explanations for information without considering the possibility of causes beyond mere natural cause and effect, as one example, is to completely cut off from discussion the most obvious of all explanations and seek instead the most unlikely and statistically unfeasible of explanations.
YEC would suggest that seeking naturalistic causes for Biblical events that most readers of scripture for 34 centuries would understand to be "miracles" of creation is an expression of bias toward naturalistic assumptions – bias against direct action of a Creator, which would seem inconsistent with belief in a Creator by definition. For the YEC crowd, those assumptions lead to dismissal of lines of evidence and reasoning that might well lead to better explanations of what really occurred than naturalistic explanations.
There is a conciliatory and irenic statement toward the end that extends the tension between the belief in a supernatural creator and the commitment to seeking purely natural causes for all things:
"While Christians differ on their views of the age of the earth and evolution, we all agree on the essentials of the faith: that all people have sinned and that salvation comes only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We agree that the God of our salvation is the same God we see in the wonders of his creation. Whether we ponder the intricacy of DNA, the beauty of a dolphin, or the vastness of the Milky Way, we can lift our hearts together in praise to the divine Artist who made it all."
Here again is an obvious question: How can purely natural phenomena where God’s activity is undetectable can serve to vividly portray the wonders of His creation. Natural cause and effect points to nothing at all beyond natural cause and effect. Nothing about the phenomena itself shows anything about a creator if one believes the explanation for its existence has exactly the same basis as the atheist naturalist.
For example, if DNA came into existence through a haphazard process of shuffling of compounds, arrangements of proteins and collections of random sequences, the how does the existence of such DNA lead to the praise of the Divine artist? If the artist did not "intelligently design" DNA, but instead allowed it to form in purely undirected natural processes that render any activity on His part invisible and undetectable to science, reason and understanding, then there is really nothing to point to that testifies to His activity or artistry at all.
What one is left with is pure naturalism that Evolutionary Creationists simply assert to be invisibly linked to a divine benevolence.
To be fair, TE (or EC if one prefers) does at times give God credit for certain immaterial phenomena like intelligence, morality or personality, but even those are often theorized in naturalist circles as being the product of natural cause and effect.
Yes, the folks at Biologos affirm the “miracle” of the resurrection. For some, the fact that the resurrection occurred during human history where humans were living to see it, is the key. If miracles testify to God's activity, then miracles are off the table prior to human history. That seems an odd constraint, and a fairly arbitrary one if the scriptures say "the heavens declare the glory of God". At any rate, the miraculous activity of God seem to begin and end with the testimony of the human Biblical authors and fades into nothingness once one enters the lab.
Instead the folks at Biologos want to assert that God's method in working in nature is limited to invisible activity within natural processes and within the laws of nature. As a result, direct activity of God in any of the events surrounding the origin of the universe, the earth, the beginning of life and the origin of the human race are simply not taken seriously.
What TE gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. Allowing for miracle in the Resurrection while not allowing for the direct activity of God in the creation week is simply inconsistent. And that inconsistency leads to the dismissal of lines of thinking that may be more in line with the truth than lines of thinking which insist on a singular narrow set of assumptions. While rejecting naturalism as a totalizing philosophy, naturalism still rules in the practice of science.
They reject naturalism, except when they don't.
It is good that Biologos has adopted a more irenic tone, but until the question of the limits of naturalism is faced squarely, the folks at Biologos will remain at odds with not only with their theistic critics, but will remain at odds with themselves.
"In contrast to EC, YEC, and OEC, Intelligent Design(ID) does not explicitly align itself with Christianity. It claims that the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe and of the development of life is a testable scientific hypothesis. ID arguments often point to parts of scientific theories where there is no consensus and claim that the best solution is to appeal to the direct action of an intelligent designer."
The second half of the statement is, I think, wrong. “Direct action” is not necessarily related to “design”. It may be, but it need not be. But the fact that the statement gives a nod to the notion of ID providing a “testable scientific hypothesis” is a vast improvement over the reams of material that insist ID is flatly not science.
But then comes the inconsistency, confirming Steven Meyer’s suspicion:
"At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena. We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe."
The rub is right there. While affirming earlier in the statement that miracles can occur, the default position at Biologos in dealing with origins is to seek natural explanations, in fact to "not give up" on seeking natural explanations. The question should be obvious. If, as stated earlier it is not true that “all of reality can in principle be explained by science” and that “supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too”, then why should one limit options to natural explanations when a) one has already affirmed that miracles can occur and b) many of the phenomena of nature do not merely lack a natural explanation at present, but have all of the hallmarks of design poised against insurmountable obstacles to random variation leading to functional outcomes?
ID, OEC and YEC would all suggest that we know what design looks like, for example, because we observe on a daily basis any number of things that we know to be designed and they all are the product of intelligence. So when looking at the appearance of design in nature, any purely natural explanations which exclude intelligence from the outset simply ignore what we know about the nature of design itself. It makes sense for a non-theist who believes nothing exists but material cause and effect to look endlessly for natural explanations and "never give up" such a quest. It does not make sense for one who believes in a creator and believes in the miraculous to impose such intellectual constraints on oneself.
ID would suggest that seeking natural explanations for information without considering the possibility of causes beyond mere natural cause and effect, as one example, is to completely cut off from discussion the most obvious of all explanations and seek instead the most unlikely and statistically unfeasible of explanations.
YEC would suggest that seeking naturalistic causes for Biblical events that most readers of scripture for 34 centuries would understand to be "miracles" of creation is an expression of bias toward naturalistic assumptions – bias against direct action of a Creator, which would seem inconsistent with belief in a Creator by definition. For the YEC crowd, those assumptions lead to dismissal of lines of evidence and reasoning that might well lead to better explanations of what really occurred than naturalistic explanations.
There is a conciliatory and irenic statement toward the end that extends the tension between the belief in a supernatural creator and the commitment to seeking purely natural causes for all things:
"While Christians differ on their views of the age of the earth and evolution, we all agree on the essentials of the faith: that all people have sinned and that salvation comes only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We agree that the God of our salvation is the same God we see in the wonders of his creation. Whether we ponder the intricacy of DNA, the beauty of a dolphin, or the vastness of the Milky Way, we can lift our hearts together in praise to the divine Artist who made it all."
Here again is an obvious question: How can purely natural phenomena where God’s activity is undetectable can serve to vividly portray the wonders of His creation. Natural cause and effect points to nothing at all beyond natural cause and effect. Nothing about the phenomena itself shows anything about a creator if one believes the explanation for its existence has exactly the same basis as the atheist naturalist.
For example, if DNA came into existence through a haphazard process of shuffling of compounds, arrangements of proteins and collections of random sequences, the how does the existence of such DNA lead to the praise of the Divine artist? If the artist did not "intelligently design" DNA, but instead allowed it to form in purely undirected natural processes that render any activity on His part invisible and undetectable to science, reason and understanding, then there is really nothing to point to that testifies to His activity or artistry at all.
What one is left with is pure naturalism that Evolutionary Creationists simply assert to be invisibly linked to a divine benevolence.
To be fair, TE (or EC if one prefers) does at times give God credit for certain immaterial phenomena like intelligence, morality or personality, but even those are often theorized in naturalist circles as being the product of natural cause and effect.
Yes, the folks at Biologos affirm the “miracle” of the resurrection. For some, the fact that the resurrection occurred during human history where humans were living to see it, is the key. If miracles testify to God's activity, then miracles are off the table prior to human history. That seems an odd constraint, and a fairly arbitrary one if the scriptures say "the heavens declare the glory of God". At any rate, the miraculous activity of God seem to begin and end with the testimony of the human Biblical authors and fades into nothingness once one enters the lab.
Instead the folks at Biologos want to assert that God's method in working in nature is limited to invisible activity within natural processes and within the laws of nature. As a result, direct activity of God in any of the events surrounding the origin of the universe, the earth, the beginning of life and the origin of the human race are simply not taken seriously.
What TE gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. Allowing for miracle in the Resurrection while not allowing for the direct activity of God in the creation week is simply inconsistent. And that inconsistency leads to the dismissal of lines of thinking that may be more in line with the truth than lines of thinking which insist on a singular narrow set of assumptions. While rejecting naturalism as a totalizing philosophy, naturalism still rules in the practice of science.
They reject naturalism, except when they don't.
It is good that Biologos has adopted a more irenic tone, but until the question of the limits of naturalism is faced squarely, the folks at Biologos will remain at odds with not only with their theistic critics, but will remain at odds with themselves.
1 comment:
Well written, Dan, and insightful. You capture really well my own difficulties with receiving the BioLogos message. Thanks for putting it into words.
Thank you!
Post a Comment