Over at Uncommon Descent, the ID blog, there are often posts and comments about theistic evolution and theist evolutionists (TE for short). Many, but not all of the ID proponents are usually quite critical of TE, as I was reminded by a recent post. For reference, that post is:
While reading and commenting on that post, it occurred to me that TEs and ID proponents have very different conceptions of God. And that is what I mainly want to discuss here.
Intelligent Raining
I’ll begin with some quotes from Barry Arrington in that recent post:
You are aware, of course, that many TEs have attacked ID and creationism for postulating “god of the gaps” explanations, i.e., allowing science to explain certain phenomena wholly in terms of natural causes, but then, in certain cases, saying, “Science has not come up with a natural-cause explanation for this, so God must have done it.” I am sure you know this drill very well: this sort of argument is a “science-stopper” so it’s bad for science, and it’s bad apologetics, because if a natural explanation is ever found, people will stop believing in God, and it’s bad theology, because it implies that God is involved in things only where “nature” fails, whereas in reality God is involved in natural changes even when natural causes are at work.
That does seem a reasonable description of the disagreement. TEs see God as involved in all of nature, whereas ID proponent see a naturalistic explanation, such as provided by science, as leaving no role for God.
Barry Arrington continues by analogizing biological systems with raindrops:
When it rains, we explain that in terms of natural causes, do we not? We say that water evaporates when the molecules obtain enough energy to escape from the liquid state, and then they rise in the vaporous state, lose energy in the cooler air, condense into water droplets forming clouds, which then break up, with gravity drawing the water down again. Or something like that. The point is that we postulate natural causes only. We may imagine God as responsible for the “laws” that “power” these events; we may imagine God as “sustaining” or “concurring with” the various operations, but fundamentally, we conceive of God as creating rain *through* these natural processes, not by throwing in some special divine actions above and beyond them. I think that ID, YEC, OEC and TE scientists would all be of one mind in this case.
That, of course, is what raises a question of intelligent raining. Arrington goes on to ask why TEs treat biology and evolution differently from raining. My response, in a comment to that post, was that I don’t think they do treat it differently. They see God’s hand in nature, and that applies whether they are talking about raining or about evolution. They do, of course, talk more about how this applies to evolution. But that is because their view on evolution is being challenged by ID proponents, while their view on rain is never taken to be controversial.
Back in the day when I was a faithful member of an evangelical church (roughly, my teen years), I thought about nature in much the same way that theistic evolutions do. And I never thought that science, even evolution, would be a problem for my faith.
On carefully reading what Barry Arrington says in that post and in his response to my comment, it occurs to me that his conception of God is very different from the conception of God that I had back in those earlier times. So let’s look at those different conceptions of God.
Two conceptions of God
There are two distinct creation stories in the Bible. The first is in Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:3. I shall refer to that as the 7 day creation, since it describes the world as created in seven days. The second creation story immediately follows, and is the story of Adam and Eve. Many Christians see these as part of a single account of creation, yet it is quite clear that they are two separate creation stories, with two very different depictions of God.
The God of the Adam and Eve story is a very human God. He talks to Adam on a person to person basis. Like all humans, he is fallible. Indeed, the Adam and Eve story is a story of his failure, for the man Adam that he created did not live up to expectations when he ate the forbidden fruit. The whole creation of man turned out to be such a mistake that he later decided to drown most of humanity (the Noah’s Ark story). And then, after the flood, he recognized that the flood itself was a mistake and he sent a rainbow as a promise that he would not repeat that mistake.
The God of the Adam and Eve story is thus not omniscient, for that would make him infallible. He was not omnipotent, else he could have simply caused the garden of eden to pass out of existence, instead of setting up cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the entrance to the garden. This God appears to exist in time and space, and to be forever meddling in the world to make changes.
The God of the 7 day creation story is a much grander God. He apparently exists outside of space and time, and can simply breath the universe into existence. This grand God appears to be both omniscient and omnipotent. He has no need to meddle with things in the world, because it is all proceeding in accordance with his grand design.
The God of scientists
It seems to me that the God of theistic evolutionists, and the God of most Christians who are scientists, is that grand God of the 7 day creation. They see all of nature as God’s creation, and they see whatever happens in nature as a working out of God’s plan. The idea of biological evolution is no threat to their faith, for they see evolution itself as part of a working out of God’s plan. Indeed, nothing that is discovered by science could be a thread to their faith. For what science shows is seen as revealing more about the workings of the handiwork of God.
The God of ID
The ID proponents and the young earth creationists appear to have a conception of God that more nearly matches the fallible God of the Adam and Eve story, though they will probably deny that their God is fallible. They see their God as having to constantly meddle in the world to control how things work out. They see any scientific explanation as bypassing their God, as leaving their God without a role to play.
The culture wars
We perhaps see the same disagreement over the nature of God at play in the culture wars. The more conservative Christians tend to emphasize the Adam and Eve story, and to think of science as leaving out God. The progressive Christians view a grand God, such as depicted in the 7 day creation story, and they see science describing what their God created. The conservative Christians, with their concept of a meddling God, think it important to meddle in peoples lives (to “cure” them of homosexuality, for example), while the more progressive Christians instead value respecting people, for they are part of Gods creation.
The Heretical Philosopher 