![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/06\/GodEarth.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Lydia McGrew<\/a> is a philosopher, Anglican, and author of what looks to be a very delightful book:\u00a0Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts <\/i><\/a>(2017). I always enjoy talking with her, and this was no exception. It occurred spontaneously and very rapidly (we both write fast!) on my Facebook page<\/a> yesterday. It\u2019s a follow-up discussion to my two recent posts:<\/p>\n You may be right. Me, I think doing it all from the start, but including some unknown \u201cnon-scientific\u201d \/ non-empirical \/ non-miraculous supervision is more plausible. And one reason I would give for that is the very rarity of miracles.<\/p>\n I think this whole thing far transcends science and empirical matter alone. There is a non-material \u201cspirit\u201d involved. The Holy Spirit, if you will . . .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I think there is a sense of ongoing involvement in terms of God \u201cupholding\u201d the universe (Heb 1:3); also the fact that He is outside of time. So we could say that He did it all in the beginning of creation, but for Him there is no sequential time, so .\u00a0. . it\u2019s only a distinction that makes sense to us in our temporal limitations. Just thinking out loud . . .<\/p>\n My position before yesterday was basically yours. The new thing for me was discovering that there was such a thing as \u201cnon-interventionist ID\u201d: which seems more plausible to me.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n God\u2019s providence is often an example of this, I would say. And so we have many biblical examples of someone doing something (pharaohs hardening their hearts<\/a>, Joseph\u2019s brothers, Satan [with regard to Job], Paul), and then the Bible states that God did it. And I argue\u00a0that it does because it approaches it in both\/and somewhat paradoxical terms.<\/p>\n So human agents did things that were intended in God\u2019s providence, but it was not His<\/em>\u00a0direct interference. It simply unfolded. It also didn\u2019t overcome human (or even Satanic) free will.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It\u2019s irrelevant whether there is human involvement in blood-clotting. I brought up my arguments about providence in response to your statement: \u201cWe have no evidence for such a \u201cforce\u201d that is not, ipso facto<\/em>, evidence for the direct action of God.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n And so I provided counter-evidence: God\u2019s use of people to enact His will, which is \u2014 precisely \u2014 not<\/em> <\/strong>direct action on His part, but indirect, through \u201csecondary agents.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Providence is a sort of force. It\u2019s some mysterious method whereby God accomplishes His will while not overcoming human free will. It\u2019s one of the biggest mysteries in theology, and so it is similar in that way also, to such a notion applied to matter and physical laws.<\/p>\n We simply don\u2019t know how it works. But I have no a priori<\/em> objection to mystery and lack of human explanations for everything.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n If there are causes other than empirical, physical ones (and providence clearly is one such, as is initial creation, since God is a Spirit), then simply crying \u201cscience, science\u201d does not overcome or explain away their existence.<\/p>\n This is not<\/em> <\/strong>just about matter or science, but also about spirit and God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Actually, I would say that everything I have said is simply speculation upon what all Christians and theists (even desists) believe: \u201cGod created.\u201d\u00a0It\u2019s merely a matter of determining how<\/em> He did that, for how long<\/em>, and whether it involves natural laws only<\/em> or these laws guided by non-material influences (i.e., design from a Designer<\/em>).<\/p>\n Nothing is merely coming from \u201cones hat\u201d in matters of such deep and profound ultimate mystery.I\u2019m glad to wear the same hat as Einstein, and to admit that we can\u2019t explain and understand everything. But we Christians believe in faith that God:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 1) Created<\/p>\n 2) Upholds His creation in some fashion<\/p>\n 3) Guides the course of evolution (insofar as it exists) in some fashion: either<\/p>\n<\/div>\n c) a combination of such laws and periodic miraculous intervention [interventionist ID].<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n I see no reason why we would understand every jot and tittle, if for no other reason than that it happened a very long time ago and we are reconstructing at this point.<\/span><\/p>\n What I mean by \u201cfrom one\u2019s hat\u201d is that the conjecture of a \u201cforce\u201d in this case is evidentially extra<\/em>, just as it would be if we did the same for some biblical miracle.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Why couldn\u2019t it be one explanation for God \u201cupholding\u201d His creation? Are you saying that Christians cannot possibly differ as to how He does that?<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know if that means physically or spiritually. I would argue by analogy that it is more likely spiritual, since initial creation was: matter came from spirit; therefore, that<\/em> was not strictly a \u201cscientific\u201d or empirical occurrence, and cannot be examined as such.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I haven\u2019t said anything about what \u201cChristians can possibly differ\u201d on. I\u2019m talking about what I think the evidence really does support.<\/span><\/p>\n In the area of ID, I think that the very evidence of ID itself shows that the events that have had to happen here\u00a0involve something other than merely the much vaguer notion of God\u2019s \u201cupholding\u201d the universe. After all, that<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cGod\u2019s upholding\u201d) is part of the metaphysical background for the formation of ice crystals and the falling of rain and all those law-like events that ID theorists so eloquently show us are not<\/em>\u00a0good analogues for the origin of DNA and all these other systems.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Well, we agree (as far as I know) that the laws of science as we know them cannot explain the origins of significantly new biological structures, so God has to \u201cintervene\u201d in some fashion other than through these processes governed by the laws: best as\u00a0we can make them out to be.<\/p>\n I say that He has the ability to do that from the beginning (that this is included in His omnipotence, omniscience, and providence), and that it involves more than merely physical processes and matter. You say He does so continuously through time via miraculous interventions.<\/p>\n I have given analogies (developed spontaneously in this dialogue and not, I don\u2019t think, even thought about before) as to why I believe my view is more plausible and defensible. But I don\u2019t see how any decisive \u201cvictory\u201d can be had in this particular debate. I don\u2019t see any absolute proof on either side. That\u2019s why I am arguing from analogy (which I usually end up doing, given my great love of Cardinal Newman).<\/p>\n I think I\u2019m doing pretty good defending my position against a philosopher and terrific debater, having only held it for one day.\u00a0:-)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Actually, I think my case is a positive one from God\u2019s nature, as I just explained: \u201cHe has the ability to do that from the beginning (that this is included in His omnipotence, omniscience, and providence), and that it involves more than merely physical processes and matter.\u201d<\/p>\n Do you agree that it is at least possible or conceivable (if not plausible or actual) that God could do it in the fashion I described?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The question at hand with regard to miracles is strictly concerning whether God often, or routinely performs them in order to bring about new species or new biological structures.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe so, because I think His omnipotence is such that He could create all that with the potentiality to bring about everything that we see now. It just seems more plausible to me. I\u2019ve given some reasons why it does. They may not be very strong. I don\u2019t know. Plausibility is a whole discussion in itself.<\/p>\n But no one is praying that a slug evolves into something else. This is the difference. The miracles we both believe in (and more that I would and you probably wouldn\u2019t, as you say) have to do with answered prayers and some sort of witness to human beings. So I think they are much more frequent (and helpful in their purpose to transform and convert people), but still not all that<\/em> frequent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n God actually probably isn\u2019t creating any new species nowadays. So it would be the past tense (from our human perspective). That God did<\/em>\u00a0perform miracles to bring new species into existence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As far as a witness to human beings, I would say that the\u00a0evidence of design in biology is a huge<\/em>\u00a0witness to human beings. I argue, then, that trying to make \u201cdesign\u201d into something non-interventionist is ad hoc as it would be if we believed that a 747 appeared somewhere quite suddenly.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Thanks for a great debate. Again, as I said, I have no objection to miracles whatever. We simply differ on how often<\/em> God performs them and whether they are virtually normative in evolution, wherever natural processes cannot move to the next step, due to incomprehensible complexity and virtual impossibility.<\/p>\n I want to stimulate the minds of our readers, and I think we have both done that. That\u2019s far more important to me than whether I have \u201cprevailed\u201d or not. So I am grateful for the opportunity to have such a stimulating dialogue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Dr. Lydia McGrew is a philosopher, Anglican, and author of what looks to be a very delightful book:\u00a0Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (2017). I always enjoy talking with her, and this was no exception. It occurred spontaneously and very rapidly (we both write fast!) on my Facebook page yesterday. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":34470,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[1048,173,3393,8853,8850,8847,433,662,8901,4144,4145,1346,8859,1289,8904,8907,8856,1047,253,295],"class_list":["post-34464","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-philosophy-science","tag-argument-from-design","tag-creation","tag-creationism","tag-darwin","tag-darwin-devolves","tag-darwins-black-box","tag-evolution","tag-intelligent-design","tag-interventionist-intelligent-design","tag-irreducible-complexity","tag-michael-behe","tag-miracles","tag-natural-selection","tag-neo-darwinism","tag-non-interventionist-intelligent-design","tag-progressive-creationism","tag-random-mutations","tag-teleological-argument","tag-theistic-arguments","tag-theistic-evolution"],"yoast_head":"\nCatholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution?<\/a>\u00a0[6-17-19]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWhy I Believe in \u201cNon-Miraculous\u201d Intelligent Design<\/a>\u00a0[6-20-19]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nLydia\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*****<\/div>\n<\/div>\nI\u2019m all in favor of intervention and miracles. Not a thing wrong with them. Not even in biological areas.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI\u2019m not denying any miracles (they take place at every Mass, and I believe in healing miracles, etc.); only denying the necessity<\/em>\u00a0of them with regard to a philosophy of Intelligent Design (just to make that clear). There is no animus against them on my part.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI tend to think it\u2019s a little more complicated than that. I love Mike Behe and his work, but I think it does support intervention. As an epistemologist, I find that the statement that some conclusion isn\u2019t necessary<\/em>\u00a0doesn\u2019t move me much. Pretty much\u00a0any conclusion in an empirical realm is not strictly necessitated by the evidence for it. I think it\u2019s extremely difficult to give any clear meaning to detectable design without intervention and that it is strained to attempt to do so.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWell, it is his position that this is one acceptable version of ID (one I\u2019m inclined to agree with). I cited his 2008 book, The Edge of Evolution<\/em><\/a>:<\/div>\n\n
[T]he designer took all necessary steps to ensure life. Those who worry about \u201cinterference\u201d should relax. The purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of natural laws.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nCould you give me a nutshell explanation of how you think such post-creation \u201cintervention\u201d from God would work?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSame way any intervention from God works! It might take the form of God\u2019s creating a new animal species. It might take the form of God\u2019s creating a new gene or miraculously modifying an existing one. Whatever it took to bring about the irreducibly complex system or entity that would not come about otherwise without his involvement. Indeed, there is far more<\/em>\u00a0of a question of what it even means or how it would even work for God deliberately to design something without<\/em>\u00a0intervening. Prima facie<\/em>, if the blood clotting cascade shows up full-formed at x point in time and not before, and if it is irreducibly complex and requires all of these parts to be in place at once in order to work, that is like a 747 showing up on my lawn. I assume that whatever happened happened then<\/em>, not by being \u201cfront-loaded\u201d in some inconceivable fashion billions of years ago in the singularity.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWe don\u2019t assume that God front-loaded the water turning into wine at the wedding at Cana but rather that, at that time, God made the water turn into wine.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI know that what you\u2019ve quoted is Mike\u2019s position. I disagree with him on that point. (I\u2019m pretty sure I told him that approx. 20 years ago, so it won\u2019t come as a shock to him! :-)) \u201cEasily compatible\u201d is far too strong, and indeed the scenario there\u00a0is quite difficult even to cash out. Again, this is not to knock Mike\u2019s work. I am a huge fan of Mike\u2019s work. I just think intervention should be embraced rather than being shunned or avoided, because it is by far the simplest explanation of what we see.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\nWell, new types of IC [irreducibly complex] systems apparently aren\u2019t coming into existence now. This all would have happened millions of years ago, probably all or almost all before mankind himself was created.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\nBut you could say that he \u201cdid\u201d the parting of the Red Sea and the raising of Lazarus outside of time as well. Yet obviously we also say that he intervened. I think that what he did to bring about biological systems and entities should be regarded as in that category, however we cash out that category metaphysically.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/span><\/span><\/div>\nDo you agree that it is possible that there is some sort of non-material force that influences the course of material evolution, and that it could conceivably have been put in place in the beginning: but can\u2019t \u2014 by definition \u2014 be examined by science?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u00a0To be quite honest, I\u2019m not even sure what that means. If I really strain and squint and sort of pretend to myself that I know what it means, then I might say, \u201cSure, it\u2019s logically possible. In the same way that it\u2019s logically possible that the Masons control all the banks but can\u2019t, by definition, be caught doing it. But lots of things that are logically possible are empirically meaningless and completely unjustified.\u201d The immaterial force for which we have evidence<\/em>\u00a0is not just a force but a person. He is the person who is God. And we have a clear idea that he acts in history. And we call his acts in history \u201cmiracles.\u201d I see no reason to introduce vague and possibly meaningless \u201cimmaterial forces\u201d in addition to God that are impossible to see but somehow exist in addition to both the physical evidence and<\/em>\u00a0God.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cNon-interventionist ID\u201d doesn\u2019t seem even remotely plausible to me, and that is partly because I think it\u2019s more or less just a slogan. It has no clear scientific meaning, and it\u2019s completely unnecessary. Moreover, the evidence is all against it. If the blood-clotting cascade showed up quite suddenly at a particular time, then why not<\/em>\u00a0think of it as brought about by intervention? That is by far the prima facie<\/em> case. The only argument against it is, I\u2019m sorry to say, distaste for intervention in biological areas<\/em>. Which quite honestly I view as an unjustifiable prejudice. I\u2019d say, go back to your position before yesterday.\u00a0:-)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0:-)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Please understand that I\u2019m not saying this in anger.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWell, I held your<\/em> view a lot longer than my present<\/em> one (about 24 hours now).\u00a0:-)\u00a0If I had any prejudice on the matter, it surely would have shown up before now . . .<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI didn\u2019t mean you. I meant all the people pressuring ID-ers because, \u201cYuck! Intervention! Ewwww.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOne analogy would be to development of doctrine<\/a>, which unfolds on its own. I think it\u2019s a weak analogy, but still an analogy.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOf course this \u201cforce\u201d is from God. That\u2019s my view. If we admit that empiricism is not the only form of knowledge or analysis, I see no problem with it.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIt is multiplying entities utterly without necessity. We have no evidence for such a \u201cforce\u201d that is not, ipso facto<\/em>, evidence for the direct action of God.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSo now we have a debate between interventionist and non-interventionist forms of ID. I didn\u2019t even know that this distinction existed till yesterday.\u00a0:-)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0So I\u2019m having fun. I love to be challenged to think in new ways.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAnd one must ask: If one postulates such a \u201cforce\u201d here, why not<\/em>\u00a0postulate a \u201cforce\u201d that brought about all of the biblical miracles? For the exact same reason: It is a complete fifth wheel as an hypothesis.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPlease don\u2019t take this to be any sort of hostility towards ID. It\u2019s very much the contrary. I\u2019d like to see them all embrace their interventionism. Paul Nelson I think is an ID scientist who takes my position.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\nEr, yes, but there is no human or other agent (as far as we know) who was involved in bringing about the visual cascade, the blood-clotting cascade, or the bacterial flagellum. Once again, why should we make such an analogy rather<\/em>\u00a0than just saying that God did intervene? I know of no good reason at all. Now, when it comes to the creation of mosquitoes, I might be more open to demonic intervention instead.\u00a0:-)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Under divine providence, of course.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\nBut I meant specifically<\/em>\u00a0a force<\/em>. The secondary agency of real, personal agents isn\u2019t a vague force. It\u2019s the action of secondary personal agents, using free will. Of course we have evidence for that<\/em>. We see it directly in ourselves. But we don\u2019t have evidence for some kind of impersonal, invisible force that is somehow part of nature but not part of nature, etc., etc. That\u2019s trying to have it both ways.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nI don\u2019t think I agree about Providence. I think that\u2019s fuzzy thinking. I could go on about that at more length, but I think it would be more to the point to point out that there are reasons why we attribute the weather to general providence but the raising of Lazarus to special divine action. As far as I\u2019m concerned, all of the actual evidence in the case of ID favors putting the necessary actions of God to bring about these entities into the latter rather than the former category. Indeed, a big part of the ID argument is that these events cannot<\/em>\u00a0be well explained in terms of the physical laws that we know about. Whereas if we say that the rain came by Providence rather than miracle, part of the point there is that the rain can<\/em>\u00a0be well-explained by known physical laws and conditions.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHow do you disagree about Providence? You agree that God is outside of time, right?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nYes, just as he was in relation to the raising of Lazarus. Yet I call that a miracle, not a general providence.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOf course it was a miracle.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nRight. And why do we not go on and on about providence as a force there instead of just calling it a miracle? Well, among other things, because it happened suddenly at a particular point in time and, most importantly, because it does not appear to be attributable to secondary causes. There are no known secondary causes that account for it. It seems then to have been a case of God\u2019s working directly. We don\u2019t make up<\/em>\u00a0an indetectible secondary cause, call it a \u201cforce,\u201d and insert it into the story, because that would be evidentially unjustified. I think it\u2019s the same way with design in biology.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHow is God directly intervening when Pharaoh hardened His own heart? How is He directly intervening when Satan tormented Job, with God\u2019s permission? That\u2019s indirect. He allowed both, because they furthered His ends and will. But it was not direct. Nor was either thing \u201cmiraculous.\u201d<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nYes, I\u2019m inclined to agree. But we have evidence<\/em>\u00a0there for the existence<\/em>\u00a0of the intermediate causes\u2013Pharoah and Satan. We have no such evidence in these cases.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cIn biology\u201d is strictly not true if there are non-material causes in play that direct the course of evolutionary biology. It\u2019s outside of biology, but is influencing or guiding it.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nBut that\u2019s just being made up out of one\u2019s hat. Just as it would be if one did the same in the case of the marriage at Cana. It\u2019s blatantly ad hoc<\/em>.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\n
\n*
\na) by natural laws that He created [theistic evolution], orb) a combination of such laws and non-material influences set in place from the outset [my present view: non-interventionist ID]\nAre you saying that we can or will eventually understand every jot and tittle of how all that works, whatever view we take?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\nSo far as I can see, the only actual reason you\u2019ve brought up for thinking that ID events (can we call them that?) are not interventions is that miracles are (should be?) rare. Note that your analogies aren\u2019t reasons. They aren\u2019t reasons for thinking that<\/em>\u00a0God has brought these events about in a non-interventionist fashion. But in relation to the entire warp and woof of natural law and the millions of years in question, the interventions required in these cases would still be quite rare. Indeed, they would be even rarer if we don\u2019t boggle at the special creation of species, since in that case a whole lot of new information would be introduced in a single stroke.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\nGod has the ability to do all kinds of things, but we conclude that God does<\/em>\u00a0do certain things as miracles\/interventions rather than by putting in place some extra \u201cforce\u201d from the beginning of the universe. Why do we conclude that? For example, in the case of a healing in the cause of a saint\u2019s canonization, why does one conclude that God performed an intervention miracle rather than a non-intervention by way of a mysterious force-in-place-as-part-of-the-universe? Well, we look at when the event took place, what occasioned it, and whether the postulation of such a force would be an ad hoc attempt to avoid postulating an intervention. When the Church puts all that together, it decides that the simplest explanation is that this was a true intervention healing. I would argue that by the same criteria, the best and simplest explanation in the case of design about what God did<\/em>\u00a0do (not just what he could<\/em>\u00a0do) is that he did<\/em>\u00a0directly bring about these events.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI would call myself an old-earth progressive creationist. In that sense, I\u2019m not convinced that macro-evolution ever happens at all. So I would not myself even speak of miracles as normative \u201cin\u201d evolution or of evolution as a series of natural processes that are unable to \u201cmove to the next step,\u201d because the only kind of evolution that I think we have evidence for (microevolution) doesn\u2019t have steps or stages or teleology of any kind but merely variation. What appears to have happened in fact is that at various points in history God has made new life-forms, new types of creatures, because he wanted to, found them beautiful or interesting, etc. They would never have evolved, nor even close, nor even come within a step, or anything of that kind, because that just isn\u2019t the kind of thing that microevolutionary changes do, any more than they do so now. I hold this position because I think it\u2019s what the evidence favors.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThat was exactly my position for many years.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nBy the way, I would point out that as a Catholic, you believe in a great many more modern miracles and on-going miracles than I do, because saints right up to our own times are always being canonized on the basis of the conclusion that God has performed miracles at their intercession. I am not saying this in any way to make an anti-Catholic statement but rather to point out that it really would be rather arbitrary to hold that origins of species millions of years ago were not carried out by direct divine intervention because that would mean that God performed miracles \u201ctoo often\u201d while simultaneously holding that all the saints ever canonized by the Catholic Church, up to those canonized recently, have brought about direct miracles by God\u2019s intervention in response to their prayers.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\nPhoto credit:<\/strong> [public domain<\/a> \/ Max Pixel<\/a>]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"