The Meaning of “Naturalism”

In the BioLogos Blog, Ard Louis addresses the differences between “methodological naturalism” and “philosophical naturalism” in the first of three parts here. It focuses more on how BioLogos should respond to criticisms about its take on science and scripture but is instructive for general purposes. In it, he cuts deep into the idea that we can use the science of the natural world to “prove” the existence of God:

Despite warnings from great thinkers such as Pascal, Newman and Barth⁴, the idea that an unbiased observer should be able to use science to find unambiguous evidence for God’s existence is remarkably resilient among Christians. Furthermore, many attempts at natural theology rely heavily on value-laden metaphors that come from popularizations of science. This cuts both ways. On the one hand Archdeacon Paley saw the hand of God in the intricate watch-like “contrivances of nature”, while on the other hand Richard Dawkins sees a pitiless and indifferent “blind watchmaker” in what he believes are the wasteful and purposeless processes of evolution. Although their conclusions couldn’t be more different, both are engaging in a natural theology based on similar rationalistic assumptions.

He argues, as I have argued, that it is an improper use of science to construct an apologetic position for the existence of God. Ultimately, such an argument can only rise to the level of “personal incredulity” that such a finely tuned universe can be the product of chance. The point is that we can, from a scientific perspective, never know whether or not God exists. This position is deeply uncomfortable for your average Christian who, intuitively, want to be able to hang their hat on something tangible to bolster their faith in an invisible God. It is this perspective that has largely fueled the Intelligent Design movement which, because of the limitations of this model has run up against a brick wall called ‘lack of testable hypotheses.’

Put simply, just because my hypothesis is wrong, it doesn't make yours correct. If there is no test for yours, we go back to the drawing board.

----------------
Now playing: Sean Harkness - Winkus McGinkus
via FoxyTunes

Evolution and Creationism: A Continuum or a Taxonomy?

Steve Martin over at An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution has some thoughts about the NCSE Creation—Evolution "Continuum." This comes originally from an article written in the late 1990s by Eugenie Scott called Antievolution and Creationism in the United States¹The NCSE has modified it over time to give ID more prominence. Dr. Scott views the continuum as being a beneficial heuristic in getting students of all ages to understand how complex the controversy really is. Steve is not convinced:

Pointing out these intermediary positions is a good way to help people understand that there is some complexity to this discussion. However, it is my view that this model may actually be counter-productive, particularly when promoting evolution in various faith communities. I believe that those of us that support the coexistence and coherence of evolution and an Evangelical expression of the Christian faith need a much better model if we are to make any progress on this issue within the Evangelical community.

The problem relates to how the continuum is put together in the first place. As Steve points out, Scott assumes a priori that if you are on the bottom of the continuum at the evolution end, you have no faith in God, whereas if you are at the top, you interpret the Bible literally. I am reminded by what Jerry Coyne had to say in his review of Ken Miller's book Only a Theory:

The reason that many liberal theologians see religion and evolution as harmonious is that they espouse a theology not only alien but unrecognizable as religion to most Americans.

Steve and others, including myself, would disagree. This is why TEs walk a very thin line. We are castigated by the YEC crowd as having fatally compromised our faith in the acceptance of an old earth and evolutionary theory and yet we are pilloried by the philosophical naturalism crowd who assume we either have to check in our brains at the door when we go to church or that we don't think the Bible is the word of God (Jesus Seminar, anyone?). Steve also suggests that the scientific criterium is incorrect as well, in that it assumes an inverse of the religious criterium. There are other things. It assumes that there is a difference between Theistic evolution and evoutionary creationism, a difference that has certainly never been made clear to me. Also, placing evolutionary creationism right smack against progressive creationism is sort of like sitting in row 6 on an airplane where smoking is permitted in rows 1-5.

In response to the continuum, Steve has devised a new model that sees three positions

1. theistic evolution
2. non-evolutionary creation
   
3. naturalistic, or materialistic evolution

This is reductionist almost to the extreme. Several benefits and disadvantages become evident. The obvious benefit to those of us that are TEs is that we can take our Bibles and walk toward the back of the plane, away from the non-evolutionary rows. The problem is that the non-evolutionary positions now take up to row 22! Mixing my metaphors here, this is truly "big tent" creationism. The non-evolutionary creation sphere includes everybody from Reasons to Believe, an old earth non-evolutionary site to the folks at fixedearth.com who truly, honestly believe that the earth is fixed and is in the center of the universe (Or maybe I've been had and it is like the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division). In that mix is the Discovery Institute and the ICR who are allies in much the same way that Churchill and Stalin were allies during the Second World War. I posit that the question can be looked at in a different way.

Being a biologist by training, I would suggest that a taxonomic tree is, perhaps, more appropriate for this question. It might look something like this:


Here, those who espouse the YEC viewpoint and those that are TEs can be traced back to a "common ancestor," belief in God. The disadvantage of this model is that it is subject to pigeon-holing people and has, currently, no place for agnostics, although in practice, agnostics split out to the right at the very top. I do not know of a single agnostic that accepts a young earth or progressive creationism. Its strength is that it does show elements of commonality and distinction (plesiomorphic and apomorphic traits, if you will). In this case, acceptance of evolution is convergent in both the "Yes" and "No" camp from the "belief in God" node. Help! I'm starting to sound like a cladist!!

No model will be completely satisfactory and this one has its problems, I am sure. I completely agree with Steve that Eugenie Scott's diagram makes unwarranted assumptions. I also think, though, that his model does not make enough distinctions between different lines of thought. This is by no means a finished product and I invite any and all discussion of this.