Question of delgates
Below are the answers of the Theistic Evolutionist Julian Ward to questions posed by delegates on the day of the conference.
1. The big bang theory that our universe suddenly appeared about 13.7 billion years ago and expanded to its present form is generally accepted by physicists. It fits with the Christian belief that God created the universe from nothing. Some non-Christian scientists speculate that our universe originated from the collision of other universes but this hypothesis has no evidence for it and it seems that we could never gain evidence for this from other universes which are in principle unbeknown to us.
Theistic evolutionists believe that God guided the evolutionary process and so created the structure of chemicals and the laws of biology that changes in DNA would allow transformations in embryological development such that new species could occur.
2 and 3. Secularists usually hold to one of the following ethical theories:
(a) Evolutionary ethics.
This holds that human morality is an extension of those traits in animals characterised by beneficial behaviour, e.g., parents feeding their young, co-operation between members of a species, protection by siblings, gifts of food to other members of the same family, etc. But ethically loaded words like altruism are unjustifiably applied by secularists to this kind of behaviour, which may be instinctive or learned. This smuggles in moral terms to create a plausible scenario that human moral behaviour is simply an evolution of animal behaviour. But this ignores the fact that morality must be grounded in values beyond our feelings. There is no evidence that even intelligent animals engage in truly moral thinking, e.g., chimpanzees do not consider the rights and wrongs of capturing baby monkeys and eating them.
(b) Emotivism.
This holds that moral judgments are no more than emotional expressions of what is liked and disliked. This reduces morality to mere feelings of what pleases one. But true morality means that there are moral standards that we should try to keep even if they are not pleasing to us.
(c) Subjectivism.
This holds that moral feelings are merely psychological states. It is subject to the same criticism as emotivism.
(d) Cultural relativism.
This holds that what is moral is determined by what is seen to be benevolent for one's culture and different cultures have differing ideas on what is moral. For example, polygamy is immoral in our culture but moral in other cultures. But, generally speaking, it is accepted by most ethicists that it is not valid to derive moral judgments from actual states of affairs (an 'ought' cannot be derived from an 'is'). Rather they require justification by rational reasons based on universal values which transcend our particular culture and outlook. For example, slavery would still be immoral even if everybody approved of this practice (as most did in the ancient world).
(e) Utilitariansim.
This holds that what is moral is that which would maximise happiness for the greatest number of people and what would minimise suffering for them. There can be situations where this seems to apply, for instance, deciding where limited financial resources should be used in health care. But more generally, utilitarianism requires a further non-utilitarian judgment as to what true happiness consists in or how utilitarian rules should be applied. For instance, utilitarian principles might lead one to argue that it is justifiable to kill a healthy person so that his organs can be used in transplants to save the lives of five terminally ill patients. But most people would regard the killing of such an innocent person as immoral.
Christians have often held to one of three ethical theories:
(a) Deontological ethics.
This holds that one should always do one's duty regardless of the consequences. Duty is here defined as that maxim which you would wish everybody else to fulfill. This theory was advocated by the philosopher Kant. So, for instance, you should always tell the truth. But can it be right to tell the truth about the location of a persecuted group to an oppressive regime if their capture would mean their deaths?
(b) Situation ethics.
This holds that love for the well-being of others will guide one as to what is right. This was used to justify the permissive society. Love is a variable and subjective feeling and cannot always be a guide to moral questions, e.g., whether there can be a just war such as Britain's fight against the Nazis in World War II.
(c) Virtue theory.
This holds that growth in maturity and wisdom as a Christian and a deepened adherence to Christian values will help one to come to the correct moral decisions in real-life situations, which can often involve moral conflicts. It is based on the belief that God has revealed certain basic moral standards, such as the ten commandments, as well as truths about the dignity and rights of human beings. Apprehension of these combined with both a deep Christian commitment and experience of life imparts the wisdom to apply moral intuitions to real-life situations such that the moral course of action becomes clear.
4. Brain damage can result in aberrant behaviour and various incapacities which have led some secularists to think that we are no more than the operation of our brains. But the Bible reveals that man is truly a spiritual and moral being made in the image of God. So it is best to think of human beings as being formed by an irreducible hierarchy of realities, namely, a human being is a physical and chemical being, a cellular being, a biological mammalian being, a psychosomatic being (with a nervous system), a psychological being, a sociable being, a linguistic, artistic and creative being, a moral being and a spiritual being. The proper working at any one level of the hierarchy requires the correct workings of the lower levels of the hierarchy. Thus cancer or brain damage can prevent the proper flourishing of human life but that of itself does not necessarily imply that a human being is no more than the workings of the brain or the body.
5. I believe that the seven days of creation in Genesis Ch. 1 were seven visions . The first three days concern environments (light - darkness, sea and sky, earth and vegetation) and the next three days concern the contents of those environments in the same order (sun, moon and stars, fishes and birds, animals and man).
20. God is more than a snooker player! The Christian view of God as the Creator means not only that he initiated the universe and all that exists but that he continually upholds the existence and operation of creation (cf. Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). The God of the miraculous creationists is one who suddenly initiated the 'kinds' of various creatures. The God of the theistic evolutionists is a God who imparted to his creatures inner powers of creativity in DNA and embryological development such that an immensely vast range of new species was possible. Some Christians have regarded the God who imparts creative powers to his creation as a greater God than the one who miraculously creates mature creatures all ready made.
21. Theistic evolution holds that the biological form of modern humans evolved from an archaic form with less brain capacity but maintains that the spiritual and moral capacities of modern man appeared suddenly. DNA studies have suggested that all modern humans are descended from one man (sometimes called 'chromosomal Adam' due to studies on the variation in the DNA of Y chromosomes) and one woman (called 'mitochondrial Eve' due to studies in the DNA of mitochondria which exist in every human cell and is inherited only through the maternal ancestry, unlike the DNA of the nucleus which is derived from both parents). It is thought that hominin evolution that led to modern man has occurred over two million years, whereas the dinosaurs were killed by global catastrophes initiated by the impact of an asteroid on the earth about 65 million years ago.
22. I have preferred to call myself an emergent creationist rather than a theistic evolutionist. It is true that they could mean the same but often the term 'theistic evolutionist' carries the connotation that one accepts Darwin's theory that the prime power in evolution is natural selection, whereas this explanation overlooks the fundamental role of changes in embryological development due to changes in nuclear DNA. Recognition of this latter factor has sometimes been called epigenetic evolution (epigenesis being a term for the creation of form in embryological development). Furthermore, the traditional meaning of 'emergence' in this context implies the evolution of radically new systems which cannot in principle be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry alone. Thus a number of eminent biologists hold that biological laws are not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry. This would be consistent with the claim above that human beings express an irreducible hierarchy. See the answer given to question 4. But some biologists do believe that, whereas the laws of biology are irreducible, man's spiritual, moral and sociable characteristics can be reduced to the laws of psychology or biology. I have indicated in my answer to questions 2 and 3 why I do not think that morality can be reduced to psychology or biology. That man became a moral and spiritual being was, I believe, an act of God.
Having clarified what I mean by 'emergent creationist' I readily allow that the evolutionary process inevitably involved physical death. But I would draw a distinction between physical death and spiritual death in the sense of alienated from God and under his judgment. In Genesis 2:17 God says, "But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Hence, spiritual death occurred before physical death. Where the Bible speaks of death in terms of alienation from God, as in Ezekiel 33:8; Romans 5:12, etc., I believe that it is speaking of spiritual death. I also believe that when God called his creation 'very good' (Genesis 1:31) he was referring to its diversity, its creativity and beauty, as well as to the creation of man in his image and the way that the earth is a fit environment for man, who was created to have everlasting fellowship with God beyond this present life. We accept that our world would be the poorer if all the lions, tigers and eagles became extinct. We thus see a value in having carnivores. Six-day creationists have sometimes supposed that they were vegetarians until the fall of man. But this implies huge miracles in the changes in digestive systems from vegetarian forms to carnivorous forms. Moreover, when Adam walked along the Garden of Eden he would inevitably have stepped on very small creatures and killed them.
23. It is commonly allowed by commentators on the Book of Genesis that the genealogies may not be complete or the names involved may sometimes have referred to family names and thus covered several generations. So it is hazardous to calculate on the basis of the genealogies the time period from Adam to Noah. It seems evident that some of the pre-diluvian patriarchs (before the Flood) had a relationship with God and would have had stories of the creation of man, which were handed down orally. We do not know when the stories of Genesis Ch. 1-3 were first communicated but I do think that they predate Moses and were known to Abraham. They could go back to the time before the Flood.
24. I would agree that miraculous creationists need to treat the argument from irreducible complexity with some caution. It is true that some systems cannot work in the way they do without all the components being present. But evolutionists have argued that some components may have had a different function before they became part of a complex system. To argue from the present lack of explanation of the origin of a system to the existence of a Creator has the effect of introducing the 'God of the gaps' and leaving the danger that science may one day be able to give an explanation how an apparently irreducibly complex system came about by means of natural causation, thus undermining the argument. I would add that it may be the case that novel systems may have sometimes arisen not from natural selection but from complex developments in embryology due to changes in DNA. Some biologists hold that there is a natural drift in DNA changes apart from selection pressures. As a Christian I believe that God pre-programmed the possible changes in DNA and embryological developments that have resulted in the immense diversity of the creatures which we know.
