Mapping the Origins Debate: Six
Models of the Beginning of Everything
by Gerald Rau (Downers Grove, Ill.: 2012)[1]
1.
Naturalistic evolution (NE):
“When most people use the term evolution, what they are referring to is
naturalistic evolution (NE), based on philosophical naturalism, the conviction
that everything can be explained by natural causes. Naturalism is closely related to materialism, the idea that
there is no reality apart from the material world, so naturalistic evolution
could also be called materialistic evolution, but naturalistic is preferred since evolution is an explanation of a
process rather than the underlying substance.” (42)
·
Philosophical
axiom. There is no
supernatural, or nothing can be known about the supernatural.
·
Inferences. Evidence from the natural world,
empirical evidence, is the only basis for knowledge, so science is the only way
of knowing and only explanations based on natural processes are allowed.
·
Logical
conclusions. Since the only
things we can know are natural, anything else is mere speculation or pure
falsehood. (43)
Proponents: Richard Dawkins, Daniel
Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, Edward O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Eugenie Scott
“Many of the writers of science
textbooks also hold a naturalistic position, whether this directly stated or
not.” (43)
2.
Nonteleological evolution (NTE):
“Nonteleological evolution (NTE) posits
that there is no intervention of the supernatural after the foundation of the
universe. This is basically a
deistic perspective, although many proponents would not willingly accept that
moniker. Many authors who support
NTE espouse a liberal Christian theology, such as process theology… The term nonteleological is chosen to convey that
although the universe was created with the ability to evolve, there was no
specific end or direction (telos) in
mind at the beginning.
“Nonteleological evolution is almost
identical to naturalistic evolution in interpretation of the scientific
evidence, with the exception of the origin of the universe, because it seeks to
identify a natural cause for all natural phenomena subsequent to that point.”
(44)
·
Philosophical
axiom. There is a
supernatural, but whatever the nature of that force, it has no plan for the
universe and therefore does not intervene in it.
·
Inferences. Only natural forces have influenced the
universe since its beginning.
·
Logical
conclusion. Since the
supernatural does not direct the natural, naturalistic explanations are
sufficient to explain any natural phenomenon. (44)
Proponents: Christian de Duve, Ian
Barbour, John Haught.
3.
Planned evolution (PE):
“The difference between planned
evolution (PE) and the two models just described is again more theological than
scientific. It is nevertheless important
to list it as a separate model since the question of teleology, which separates
them, plays a prominent role the debate and has important ramifications. According to this view God had a
definite plan in mind, which was set
in motion at the moment of creation.” (45)
“According to PE, God has the
capacity to intervene in nature but does not need to do so because of the
perfection of the original creation, what Howard Van Till (1999) calls ‘the
fully gifted creation,’ which is able to bring forth life in various forms over
time in response to the changing conditions, ultimately leading to humankind.”
(45)
“Scientifically, this results in a
position almost identical to naturalistic evolution (NE) and nonteleological
evolution (NTE), since God does not regularly intervene in the development of
life or species, and therefore natural processes are thought to be sufficient
to explain the evidence. The
difference lies in the fact that PE asserts the mechanisms for change were
built into creation and established for the specific purpose of bringing about
God’s plan of creating sentient being who could worship him.
“Since this model also seeks only
natural causes after the moment of creation, the scientific inferences made are
in many cases indistinguishable from NE and NTE.” (46)
·
Philosophical
axiom. God created the
universe with a plan and created it perfectly to bring that plan to fruition
without further intervention.
·
Inferences. The natural laws and processes created
by God are sufficient to account for all natural events since the moment of
creation.
·
Logical
conclusion. Since God did not
intervene in natural processes after creation, science can always find natural
explanations for natural phenomena. (46)
Proponents: Howard Van Till,
Francis Collins and the Biologos Foundation, Kenneth Miller
4.
Directed evolution (DE):
“Directed evolution (DE) and planned
evolution share a similar overall interpretation of Genesis 1, although
proponents of DE are more likely to view Adam and Eve as single individuals,
progenitors of the entire human race.
Directed evolution asserts that God not only brought the universe into
being but continues to act in it, not only in the lives of individuals in
response to prayer but also in creative events, to bring about his plans. In many cases this does not involve
superseding natural law as much as direction
of low probability events, hence the name of the model.” (46-47)
“From a DE perspective, science and
religion are not viewed as distinct or complementary domains of knowledge, but
as interacting domains of knowledge.
This is a crucial difference.
Complementary domains have no overlap. They deal with a separate set of questions and answer those
questions based on disparate methodologies. Interacting domains do intersect. According to this view at least some questions are best
addressed using evidence from both domains. In the case of DE, the only evidence admitted from Scripture
about origins is the existence of a deity who intervenes from time to time in
miraculous ways, with science providing evidence for mechanism. The two creationary models, described
next, assert that Scripture also tells us something about the method of
creation, which DE denies.” (47)
·
Philosophical
axiom. God has a predetermined
purpose for the world, and the Bible shows that he intervenes in the natural
world as necessary to accomplish that plan.
·
Inferences. Miracles are recorded in the Bible to
show that God intervenes occasionally in redemptive history, so it is
reasonable to think the same might be true for natural history.
·
Logical
conclusion. Since we see a
large number of low-probability events that seem to be directed toward a goal
(teleological), these would be best explained as interventions. (48)
Proponents: “At this point I am not
aware of any author who gives a complete scientific and religious justification
of this model.” (48)
5.
Old-earth creation (OEC):
“Old-earth creation agrees with DE that
science and religion are interacting domains of knowledge, but OEC further
asserts that the Genesis account has explicit scientific value, that the order
of events in Genesis 1 accurately reflects the order of what happened.” (49)
“At least four different models—PE, DE, OEC
and YEC—believe that the Bible and the world are equally important revelations
of God, and that the two, properly interpreted, will not conflict with each
other. Reflecting this tension
between two sources of knowledge, empirical evidence and religious texts, OEC
sometimes chooses to interpret the Bible in the light of scientific evidence,
but other times chooses to interpret science in light of the Bible.” (49)
·
Philosophical
axiom. God chooses to reveal
himself through the Bible and creation, both of which clearly disclose his
existence and identity.
·
Inferences. We must find the most straightforward
interpretations that allow us to harmonize the biblical statement that God
created in six days with the empirical evidence that the universe and earth
appear to be billions of years old.
·
Logical
conclusion. Since God wants
his actions to be clear, the earth must indeed be billions of years old, and
his work in creation will be clearly discernible as discrete creative acts over
time, in the same order revealed in the Bible. (49-50)
Proponents: Hugh Ross and the staff
of Reasons to Believe, Stephen Meyer, and many others at the Discovery
Institute
6.
Young-earth creation (YEC):
“The Christian YEC model claims that the
Bible clearly teaches that God created the world and everything in it in six
literal twenty-four hour days about six thousand years ago, and that any other
view involves ‘reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible
theories of sinful people’ (Ham, 2006: 88). Other key tenets of YEC include Adam and Eve, two
individuals created de novo by God,
being the progenitors of all humans, one act of sin leading to the fall of
humankind, no death of any sort before the fall, a worldwide flood and
separation of human language groups at the tower of Babel.” (51)
·
Philosophical
axiom. The Bible is the inerrant
Word of God, and each word should be understood in accord with its normal,
common meaning, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary within the Bible
text itself.
·
Inferences. When the Bible says God created
everything in six days, it means six sequential twenty-four-hour days. When it says he created each kind of
animal, or that he created man (male and female), it means each was created
separately and fully formed.
·
Logical
conclusion. Since the Bible
says that God created everything in six days, and each kind of creature
individually, only interpretations of scientific observations which are
consistent with those revealed truths can be correct. (52)
Proponents: Ken Ham of Answers in
Genesis, Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International, John Morris of
Institute for Creation Research, Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds of the
Discovery Institute, Kurt Wise.
[1]
Rau’s discussion of these models on pages 38-52 can be found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=HBulCYL4csMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
