Let's start by looking at how they arrived at their conclusion. The Creation Study Committee (the Committee) defined evolution as "naturalistic" on account of a statement provided by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). That statement characterized biological evolution as
an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments. [1]Not the greatest definition, really, but there it is. According to the Committee, that statement effectively "rules out any supernatural activity of God in the origin and development of life and of humans, and hence makes a naturalistic metaphysic the basis of science."
Logically, neither conclusion follows. In the first place, nowhere in that statement from the NABT is the supernatural activity of God ruled out. Simply speaking of a "natural process" does not somehow rule God out. Presbyterians should understand that the order and function of creation are sustained and governed by God through ordinary providence (i.e., second causes). This presupposes the nearness and activity of God, as Donald Macleod admits, whom they had referenced earlier: "All the second causes owe their potency to [God], and the whole system is effective only because of his indwelling power." [2] So, as I said, speaking of natural processes—even describing them in exquisite detail—does not magically rule God out.
Consider the following example. We might say that meteorology is the scientific study of the weather, particularly with regard to the atmospheric distribution of pressures, temperatures, and moisture which produce such phenomena as winds, clouds, storms, and precipitation. These normal day-to-day weather changes are part of a larger pattern of fluctuation known as climate. Notice that these scientific statements don't include any reference to God who commands the weather. Does that allow us to conclude that this view of meteorology is therefore naturalistic, in the sense of ruling out any supernatural activity of God? Obviously not. In the same way, doctors don't reference God when explaining your diagnosis and chemists don't include God in their description of a covalent network and so forth. This is not ruling God out, it is not naturalistic, and it is not contrary to Scripture. [3]
So straight away we know that the vast majority of the NABT statement is properly consistent with a biblical world-view and the Westminster Standards, with only two questionable terms remaining, "unpredictable" and "chance."
Does evolution being unpredictable and affected by chance events rule out the supernatural activity of God? I don't see how. Let's start with the fact that the NABT statement is a non-religious definition that neither affirms nor denies the existence and activities of God, a fact which the Committee itself acknowledged. What does that mean for our discussion? It means that evolution is "unpredictable" relative only to us, it means that "chance" mutations are random only for us. These terms reflect human ignorance and the limits of human knowledge, implicating nothing of God. An illustration of this may be the conception and development of a baby in the womb. Out of some 250 million sperm, only one will survive long enough, actually reach the egg, and successfully fertilize it, an unpredictable outcome affected by chance events that don't rule out the activity of God (Ps. 139:13). Or how about the man who shot an arrow "at random," humanly speaking (1 Kings 22:34), and fatally wounded the king of Israel, just as God had ordained (21:19; 22:20, 28; cf. 22:35, 38). Things may be random or a matter of chance humanly speaking but they are under God's sovereign government (cf. Prov. 16:33). [4]
So, it turns out that nothing in the NABT statement ruled God out, so the conclusion drawn by the Committee does not follow.
Second, it is incomprehensible nonsense for the Committee to claim that evolution being naturalistic (it's not) makes metaphysical naturalism the basis of science. It would take a smarter person than me to unpack that and identify the fallacy at work there. Nevertheless, it is actually the other way around: only if metaphysical naturalism was the basis of science would the science of evolution be naturalistic.
Metaphysical naturalism "is the philosophical doctrine that the natural world is all there is and that God, angels, and the like, do not exist. Science presupposes methodological naturalism but not philosophical naturalism, and the two should not be confused" (emphasis mine). [5] If your physician doesn't refer to God in his diagnosis, does that allow you to conclude that metaphysical naturalism is the basis of medicine? Of course not.
Contrary to the invalid conclusions of the Committee, neither evolution nor science is naturalistic; they neither include nor exclude the "special or supernatural activity of God." They ignore it. The limited competence of science does not extend to theological questions about God. The degree to which creation is sustained and governed by God through ordinary providence is a theological question, not a scientific one.
Related post-script: It is ironic that the Committee was willing to accept the science of evolution if only it meant that "the creatures we see today are related to those whose remains we dig up [as] fossils, and that the differences [between them] have to do with genetic changes that the descendants have inherited," with illustrative comparisons to be made between artificial selection and natural selection to flesh out the idea—rather like what Charles Darwin did. There may be legitimate questions "over just how much genetic relatedness the various species have with each other," it was said, but if evolution were to be argued in this sense "there would not be the kind of controversy that we find today." (!!!) The irony is so thick because that is precisely how evolution is understood and explained—yet there is controversy.
John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 1,000 words
Footnotes:
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[1] The citation provided in the Report amounts to a web address with no dates of either publication or access. However, I own a print copy, which is: National Association of Biology Teachers, "Statement on Teaching Evolution" (1998), in Philip Appleman, ed., Darwin, a Norton Critical Edition, 3rd ed. (1970; New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001), 615.
[2] Their citation was: Donald Macleod, Behold Your God (Tain: Christian Focus, 1990) 50.
[3] Ruling God out requires more explicit language. According to the Committee, an earlier version of the NABT statement had included the term "unsupervised." That would rule God out. It would also be unscientific, which is probably why it was removed.
[4] The word "chance" has at least three different meanings relevant to science discussions. (1) The first meaning of chance is an event that is predictable in principle but not in practice. For example, if we possessed every single tiny detail relevant to weather and climate patterns, with a quantum supercomputer to crunch the numbers, we could theoretically forecast the weather with 100 percent accuracy. (2) The second meaning of chance is an event that is not predictable either in principle or in practice. For example, given quantum physics, when a radioactive atom decays we cannot know when the next high-energy particle will be emitted. (3) The third meaning of chance is metaphysical and very different from the first two, referring to the notion that the existence of the universe was a spontaneous accident and therefore has no reason, meaning, or purpose. Only the first two meanings are relevant to evolution and consistent with a biblical world-view. Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford, UK: Monarch, 2008), 133–134.
[5] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 358. For an informative, compelling, and balanced discussion on methodological naturalism being the basis of science, read Jim Stump's contribution on pages 106–111 in Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre, eds., Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment