The ID debate - moving forward (III)
With our ground rules in place and the issues of metaphor outlined, I now lay out my own thoughts about how we can better think about the relationship between Creator and Creation. Fundamentally, I want to avoid the pitfalls of the common descriptions – reductionism, concern primarily with malfunction, one-dimensionality and the subordination of the Creator.
As I mentioned in the previous article in this series, one metaphor that I believe to be very useful in thinking about our own life is the idea of journey. However, this idea can be applied much more widely than simply on an individual level. Indeed, I believe that it can be applied very successfully to Creation as a whole.
That is, just as each of is on a journey from birth to death, so is Creation itself. Indeed, we can say more than that. For, just as each Christian journeys with God (with God in our hearts, we might say), so does Creation journey with God. Not only is Creation made and sustained by God but God dwells in its heart. For we believe in an Incarnate God – a God who came and became an integral, crucial part of this Creation.
We might object that “He came to those who were His own and His own knew Him not”, but we must proclaim that “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”. If this means anything, it means that eventually every part of Creation will confess the Lordship of Christ. Creation itself will be redeemed. That is, Creation itself (no less than we human beings) is on a journey of salvation.
Landscape
But I want to add still one more dimension to this picture – landscape. For, if we journey, we must journey across a landscape. There must be roads, hills, valleys, briars, swamps. The landscape is the world of possibilities that we follow or discard with each choice made. Do we turn right or left? Do we take the easy road or the hard one? Do we follow Christ or our own desires?
And this landscape of possibilities is itself created by God. It must be, for the possibilities that are open to anyone (to Creation itself) are implicit in where it starts its journey and what capabilities it has. And the paths that we can take are determined also by the obstacles in our way and the encounters we have along the way.
So, God creates us, starts us on a journey of discovery. We travel and make choices, left or right, up or down. And yet the roads we journey are determined by God at the Creation of the world. The starting place and destination are set out beforehand – for we may turn left and yet find that the road turns to the right.
That is, we may have real choices with real implications, and yet the final destination may not differ. Only the path we take differs. (For the moment, I’m leaving open the question of whether we may affect our ultimate destination at all – this picture works equally well in either case, for any destination is implicit in the landscape God creates. So, even if we end up at the “wrong” place, it is only because God created that possibility.)
Creation and design
This may seem OK for individuals but for Creation itself? How can we talk of Creation making choices or taking different paths? Now, I want to draw a little on some modern science, possibly the most famous aspect of Physics: quantum mechanics. (Don’t be scared, only a little bit!) At the centre of QM is the idea of uncertainty, of alternative possibilities. The particle can be here or there, the radioactive atom can decay or not, the cat can be dead or alive. And these choices are random – they are intrinsically unpredictable.
So, there are many roads that Creation could take, even discounting human choice. With each atom that decays, the Universe turns left or right. The implications of each path are different. And, when it comes to living things, they get even more complicated, because living things are probably the most complicated things there are.
This is where we get into “Intelligent Design” 
For I do not believe the position put forward by ID: that God (the Designer is never formally admitted, but for Christians it is implicit) interfered with the development of Creation in order that certain features of living things might appear; and that these features could not have appeared by evolution in the normal sense.
As I’ve said, the position that these things were “impossible” (or effectively so) for evolution has no formal scientific justification. It is based on assertion only. If, however, we stop looking only at the path that Creation has taken and think about the landscape across which it has travelled, we get a different picture. God did not have to interfere in the “natural” journey of Creation in order for God’s designs to come to pass – such a picture suggests that God is not completely in control! Rather, every path that could have been taken would lead eventually to the same place.
God did not create a singular set of rails along which Creation has trundled, never deviating from God’s intentions. Nor are there sets of rails that Creation travels along, only to be shunted from one to another every so often by God (as “design events” are required). Rather, I believe, God created a landscape of possibilities across which Creation and Creator have travelled together (remember, Creation has Christ at its centre). Whichever turns Creation makes, the roads eventually lead to the same places. Evolution may be driven by “natural forces” only, but the roads towards which those forces push us are determined by the way God created the Universe. We were inevitable, because God wanted us to be – not because God controls every choice made but because God created the world in such a way that all roads led to us.
Compare and contrast
This picture has important differences from most other stories about Creation that I have come across. Unlike Intelligent Design, it does not posit interference in the journey that Creation takes. Unlike Guided Evolution, it does not posit control over the path that Creation took. Instead, it suggests that God created a world that is genuinely capable of taking many paths, and yet a world that will absolutely arrive at the destination(s) that God desires.
Unlike the Creationist, we do not have to suggest that Creation lies to us about how it was made and the journey it has taken.
Unlike the predestinationist, we do not have to suggest that God controls every event within Creation, leaving no true freedom for any creature.
Unlike the ID advocate, we do not have to suggest that Creation wandered from the path God desired, or was incapable itself of following that path.
Unlike the materialist, we do not have to claim that there is no divine control of Creation.
Rather, we can occupy a middle ground. We can claim that God truly controls the destinations of Creation itself, and of every creature within it. We can also claim that Creation and every creature are nonetheless free to make real choices with real consequences. We can claim that Creation’s journey may surprise God but yet that God cannot be truly surprised, for every possibility is determined by God. We can claim that God dwells at the heart of Creation and at the heart of the believer.
Ground rules revisited
So, with this picture in place, what do we make of the ground rules I suggested in the first part of this series? The first few are trivial – God created the Universe and called it Good, God has plans that will ultimately come to pass, God and Creation are distinct, God truly dwells within Creation as well as outside. The last few are trivial, too – the methods of science tell us truly about the nature of the Universe and the paths that it has taken, the body of knowledge within science is a fair representation of that nature and history. For, in this landscape picture, we are relying on the way Creation was made, on its integrity, for it to make its journey. Christ is at the centre of Creation – how, then, can we suggest that Creation itself is fundamentally inadequate and incoherent?
So, if there are no problem ground rules, how do we go forward? First, I think that this offers a better picture of how “design” and “Creation” are related. The design happens first, and Creation lives out that design. Second, I think that this offers insight into how divine predestination of the individual is related to individual freedom and choice. For we here have a picture in which the landscape for each individual (complete with destination[s]) was set in place before the Universe was made, and yet a Universe within which each person is really free to make the choices that lie before them.
One might protest that this freedom is partial, for we can only choose between the options presented to us. But this has always been the case. I cannot “choose” to jump to the moon, or to swim to the bottom of the sea, or to grow a new arm. We have always known that our choices are contingent and limited. However, those choices that we are presented with are nonetheless genuine choices. Without the ability to choose, we could never grow to maturity.
One final point I want to make is about miracles, about God acting within Creation. From what I’ve said so far, we might think that this picture is fundamentally materialist – that “natural law” is all that there is. But this is not true. For, if Christ is at the centre of Creation, Christ is part of the journey of Creation. The distinction is, we might say, between signs and designs. When God acts within Creation, it is always as a sign. The action isn’t about itself but about the sign of God that is conveyed. Hence Jesus’ harsh words for those who demanded miracles and wonders before they would believe – it’s not about power but about God’s message. We should listen to the message, not look for demonstrations of power. The whole of Creation declares God’s glory. We need not look for “proofs” of that glory in individual structures, for the whole Universe makes it known.
So, the path of Creation will be affected by acts of God, by events that do not arise from “natural law”. But these events are part of the salvation story, part of the self-revelation of God within Creation. They are not, if you like, part of the walker but part of the path. Creation, the journeyer, meets God as it travels and is changed by the meeting. The distinction lies in the meaning of the meeting.
The end
So, there we go. That’s a metaphor I currently find useful for picturing the relationship between Creation and design, freedom and sovereignty. This is its first time in the wide world, so I’d appreciate help removing the rough edges and correcting any errors. Even demonstrations that it’s wrong, provided you’re gentle
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
I think that I follow part 3 in your excellent series on ID. I wonder though if you would be able to summarise the whole thing for the hard of thinking (i.e. me) into a paragraph or two, like they used to do and perhaps still do in journals like “Science” and “Nature”.
Am I thinking on the right lines when I summarise (and grossly over-simplify) your thinking thus: just as we as individuals journey through life with God, so Creation is a journey with God; ordained by him but not determined by him, other than that he intended all along for people to exist.
You’ve certainly given me a banquet of food for thought and I’m really grateful to you for that. I’d really appreciate it if you could help me to be sure that I’ve correctly understood your theory.
All the best
Ruth
ruth () (URL)
11:42am on 06 May 2006
I should really learn to summarise, it’s true. Basically, yes, you’re right – I’m using the picture of a journey to describe what happens to Creation, just as we use it to describe our own lives. And extending the idea in that, although the specific paths we walk are not decided by God, the only paths available to us are the possibilities that God allows. Our choices are real, and their consequences are real, but the directions in which those choices take us are not always what we expect. Similarly, the Christ-centred Creation follows its own path, but it still arrives at the destinations God intended.
Hope that helps!
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
7:32pm on 06 May 2006
To my mind (I’m not going to be any more self-deprecrating about the tiny size of my mind), your theory makes a lot of sense. The parallel nature of God’s creation of and then relationship with humankind, and God’s creation of and then relationship with everything else seem credible to me.
But what of natural disasters….? Why the tsunami (I know theologians have written long and hard in response to that question, but I’d be interested to know your views on why God would place his beloved humans in a world that he’d designed and that would actually destroy large numbers of them. I’m only interested here in natural disasters that result in no way from human activity.
I suppose any answer to that question would mirror a response to the question: why can a 10 year old “be allowed” to die of a brain tumour.
I hope my question isn’t a tedious one. Thanks, once again, for giving me something to ponder as I go about my desperate housewifely duties.
Ruth
(p.s. I have another burning question re the bible that’s nothing to do with this. Could I pose it? Please understand that I’m embarassingly new to contemplating the bible and my faith. My questions are very basic)
Ruth () (URL)
1:46pm on 07 May 2006
Second, there’s an assumption in the question – that suffering and, particularly, death are the ultimate evil. That’s a cultural assumption, and it seems to arise from our own comfort. I talked a little about this a while ago and I still find the report interesting.
If you want to ask another question, go for it!
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
10:59pm on 08 May 2006
At this point I haven’t seen anything you’re saying that very clearly conflicts with what the ID advocates insist on. It just amounts to disagreeing on details of their own views (views that they don’t think ID arguments require but that they hold for theological or independently philosophical reasons).
Jeremy Pierce () (URL)
7:27pm on 10 May 2006
Its an inductive argument that allows for the possibility that its conclusion is false but just takes it to be rational to accept the conclusion on the basis of the strong but not infallible evidence.
The problem with that is that there is no strong evidence. There’s not even any reasonable evidence. (I’m speaking scientifically, here.) The only evidence that has been offered has been comprehensively demolished. Whatever the attractions of ID as a theory, it is lacking in substance. This might change, but that’s the position at the moment.
I’m not, it must be said, trying to position myself outside any interpretation of “intelligent design”. I do though, as you know, have issues with certain aspects of ID theory as it’s generally put forward. Most particularly, ID theory posits both that there is a Designer who interferes continually with the progress of the Universe, and that there is scientific evidence of this interference. I believe that the first aspect of this is misguided and not good doctrine for a Christian (and this is the focus of this post – showing another way of thinking about design and the Creator), and that the second is simply untrue. If there are other formulations that avoid these errors and yet can be called “intelligent design”, I’ll happily consider them on their merits. But they will be different theories to what is put forward as ID at the moment.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
9:43pm on 10 May 2006
The view you oppose is held by Behe, Dembski, and Johnson. But that view is not equivalent with what they call ID. The view they call ID is one they invite theistic evolutionists to accept as well. Some won’t because they don’t think there’s evidence of an intelligent designer within natural causes. Others very well could if they think there is such evidence. That’s all I’m saying. I think these points are important, because there are people who hold to what is often called theistic evolution who accept ID arguments as at least potentially good arguments. It’s different from the full view these guys happen to hold, but it’s not necessarily at odds with the component of their views that derives just from the ID arguments themselves.
Jeremy Pierce () (URL)
10:07pm on 10 May 2006
Martin LaBar () (URL)
11:26am on 11 May 2006
I’m going to go ahead and post a link to this series on my blog now that I’m back from final exams.
I would say that I have little issue with 95% of what you wrote. In fact, I find it to be impressive, simple and yet detailed, and, not to embarrass you, beautiful.
The part I have issue with seems to be tiny – as far as the volume of explanation goes. However, it’s relevance to the entire analogy may be huge.
We can claim that God truly controls the destinations of Creation itself, and of every creature within it. We can also claim that Creation and every creature are nonetheless free to make real choices with real consequences. We can claim that Creations journey may surprise God but yet that God cannot be truly surprised, for every possibility is determined by God.
You simultaneously express the Reformed position, the Arminian position and the Open Theist position. To claim that the destination of a man is pre-determined is Calvinism . To claim that we choose, yet God knows what we will choose is Arminian. To claim we can surprise God, even though he has set the choices before us and knows what will happen when we choose one, is Open Theism.
I would observe that the body of this work is incompatible with Open Theism, though you seem to want to express a bit of it. The determined destination denies Arminianism. You’re either becoming more Reformed or just thinking out loud. I hope it’s both!
The other possible challenge with the analogy is not only the interrelation between God and Creation, but between the created. How can my destination be determined by God, yet the paths of other cross mine and interfere with my choices? If I am murdered at 33, was it my choice, the murderers’ choice, or both of our choices which led me to my early death? And, if it was any, was it also my destination?
I appreciate your work on this.
Peace in Christ,
Hammertime () (URL)
5:07pm on 11 May 2006
I’d be happy to discuss the problem of evil – that is, the existence of evil in a world created by an omniescient and good God. John has expressed what Alvin Plantigna calls the “Free Will Defense”. I think it is a good answer – but not the best one. Do you have a blog of your own to cmment on it, so that we do not take over John’s post with it?
Hammertime () (URL)
5:09pm on 11 May 2006
I agree that only open theists can consistently claim that God is surprised. That position is not available to the Calvinist or the Arminian.
Jeremy Pierce () (URL)
6:45pm on 11 May 2006
Thanks for your kind words
Amen. I believe that a large part of the problem in the “Calvin vs Arminius” debate is that it’s asking the wrong question in the wrong way. And that the answer isn’t “either-or”, it’s “both-and” or “yes, but”. This means that our models ought to allow both ways of speaking about things – that we choose and that God is in charge.
That is, I don’t think I’m really becoming more Reformed, nor am I becoming more Arminian or more Open Theist. I’m trying to find a way through this mess that lets us affirm all of the biblical statements about the relationships between creatures, Creation and Creator without having to fall into one of these positions, which I believe to be too limited in their views of what God is capable of.
As to your last question, it’s quite clearly the murderer’s choice – following a path laid out as a possibility by God. Your destination is one God allowed when God laid out your own paths. The possibilities of your future have been cut off by the other person’s action, but this doesn’t mean that your own destination is out of God’s control. (This is, I think, part of why murder is such a terrible thing – it’s removing the possibilities of someone else’s future, impoverishing God’s Creation.) This is part of what I mean when I say that there may be multiple paths to the same destination, and there are also multiple destination that are actually the same place.
Also, if you remember my post on Purgatory, you’ll remember that I don’t think that we stop changing when we die. We continue a journey towards God after we die until we are made perfect. Even then, I suspect that we continue to journey into deeper knowledge and love of God. For that journey is without end.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
09:31am on 12 May 2006
As the series continues, if it’s worth anything, I would proffer a warning – that attempting to be too inclusive yields a message that says nothing. Some things ARE either-or: God is either good or evil. A man is a follower of Christ or he isn’t. You’re going to have to draw lines – even if it is a wholesale exclusion of lines themselves. Obviously I buy into the existence of both-and’s: Christ was both God and man, there is election and responsibility. Yet, everything is not a both-and.
The issue is that, as you get further into your analogy, you either have to give some detail or leave us with a vagueness that may make us feel good, yet benefit us none. Some areas I’d like detail on:
How can multiple destinations be the same place?
In what ways do the three theologies we discussed fall short?
I’ll leave the Purgatory comment aside from this topic, as I find it so unbiblical and ahistorical that it would darken the picture you are painting for me. If you feel that Protestants are pain/suffering dodgers, you should read the Puritans – or maybe that crazy Anglican, J.I. Packer.
Hammertime () (URL)
7:05pm on 12 May 2006
The thing about lines is that, sometimes, they become fossilised into place. And we do learn new tools with which to approach problems. So the old answers may fail to satisfy not because they’re wrong, exactly, but because we have learned to see further. It’s that “standing on the shoulders of giants” thing. Sometimes, it’s worth revisiting these lines and seeing whether they’re really drawn in the right places, or whether we can’t see new solutions to the old problems that subsume the old categories.
The destinations are the same place in that they are with God. A major way of understanding our life is that it either leads to God or away from God; if it ends up with God then it surely matters little (except to the person involved, perhaps
As to the shortcomings of certain theological approaches: calvinism is often (usually) too stark and hard, and doesn’t witness to a loving Father; arminianism is often (usually) too self-centred (I don’t really need to criticise that one to you, I don’t think!); open theism doesn’t take seriously enough the foreknowledge or sovereignty of God. All, however, have hold of important truths: God is sovereign of Creation and creatures; human beings are able to make real choices (love that is forced is not love); human freedom implies that God must in some sense not foretell human actions. Traditionally, those three truths have been held to be self-contradictory. I’m hoping that they need not be, for I think that we can hold something from each without being incoherent or wilfully contradictory.
As for purgatory, it’s not strictly relevant so I’ll let you off for now
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
7:30pm on 12 May 2006
The whole doctrine would make no sense without God lovingly bestowing mercy on those who don’t deserve it. That’s the heart of what Calvinists call the doctrines of grace. If you mean that some Calvinists deemphasize or even deny the love of God for those who aren’t elect, then you’d be right that some do, but you’d be focusing on a minority view among Calvinists historically. Calvin himself didn’t hold this, and most Calvinists have not held this. I don’t think your impression of Calvinism is very representative of Calvinists.
arminianism is often (usually) too self-centred
That’s pretty unfair. There’s something about Arminianism that places too much in the hands of human beings, but that’s not selfishness. Selfishness is putting your own interests above those of others. Arminianism isn’t about that issue at all. It’s not a moral theory but a metaphysical view.
Jeremy Pierce () (URL)
7:50pm on 12 May 2006
Yes, they were single-phrase caricatures. But not, I think, totally unfair. Calvinism has a beauty but it’s a stark, cold beauty. It’s not that it doesn’t include love and grace, but that it turns them into shadows of what they ought to be. And I didn’t say that arminianism was selfish but self-centred. That is, it focuses on the individual’s choice to such an extent that it tends to exclude the sovereignty of God.
Of course, there are moderate versions of both theories that don’t share the weaknesses to the same extent as the full versions, but the weaknesses are always there. I’m hoping that we can find ways to hold the truths of both theories at the same time – because they may then balance one another.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
8:28pm on 12 May 2006
You have, in the comments here, established some philosphical fallacies. If you are going to expound on them later, or feel they are not important to your progression, then don’t feel the need to respond to them here.
God is sovereign of Creation and creatures; human beings are able to make real choices (love that is forced is not love); human freedom implies that God must in some sense not foretell human actions. Traditionally, those three truths have been held to be self-contradictory.
The first fallacy would be that the set above is in any fashion contradictory. The statements can all be true and entirely uncontradictory. What can make one or more of them incoherent with the rest is some assumptions that you leave unnamed, which are pretty important if they make them contradictory. I would hold that “God is sovereign” and “humans make real choices” are not only philosphically not contradictory, but that even the attached assumptions make them aligned. The third part canbe contradictory, depending upon scope.
The second is that “love that is forced is not love”. I disagree for two reasons: One, you cannot name a forced love, so you are arguing from silence. Second, Jesus says that love is not some feeling, but obedience to his commendments (John 14&15). That can be either forced or free, correct?
Hammertime () (URL)
9:07pm on 12 May 2006
John, I’ve also included my “question on the bible” in that post.
I’m very grateful to you both for offering to give your views on these things.
Ruth () (URL)
11:04pm on 12 May 2006