As a former Young Earth Creationist (YEC) I was quite familiar with the idea of the "God of the Gaps." Essentially it is the anti-evolutionary position that "biological gaps" exist between evolutionary transitionary forms that could not be explained. This position more-or-less argued for the biblical idea (found in the Genesis creation story) that God made animals and man in their "kinds" as versus the evolutionary idea that an evolutionary species transitioned from one evolutionary level to the next evolutionary level, branching as it goes through specialized biological adaptations in response to the evolutionary environment that it existed within, its needs as a living thing, and need for succession and survival.
For example, a YEC would say that a fish and a mammal are two separately created kinds (or life forms) with no evolutionary forbearance from one to the other. Whereas an evolutionary position would say that the eyes or the jaw bone of the fish persisted from the fish to the amphibian to the reptile and mammal that marks the human species today. So that rather than thinking in the YEC category of a "kind" one should think in the category of "developmental evolutionary transitions." Which is why the idea of a transitionary species (or kinds) becomes the next level of argument with the YEC position pertaining to evolutionary progression.
As the argument goes, if there were transitionary species than why don't we see them? Suffice it to say that this argument is better contextualized within the larger understanding of evolutionary development of which we have suggested several articles to this idea (see the science sections here at this blogsite. Or do a google search using Relevancy22+the topic you wish to find). Succinctly, in answer to the question, the type of transitionary forms that a YEC position is seeking are non-existent, making the YEC argument moot. Why? Because for a good mutation to exist it must survive otherwise it would die as a freak to its species level. Too, these transitionary forms are found everywhere about as pre-evolving forms moving from one level of adaptation to another, while all the while branching off into their own lines of specializing species. Some of which managed to survive major catastrophes like end-of-life volcanic eruptions, meteor bombardment, or large climatic change (depleted oxygenation stages, evolving sea water salination, or the more typical latter-stage glacial periods).
At this point, the "God of the Gaps" idea expanded from primarily one of biological argument to a more generalized form of metaphysical argument. That is, the YEC position would begin to make larger-than-life metaphysical observations based upon its belief system to more generalized (spiritual) principles about God, human history, life, and the basis for all things and where they are going. Basically, a summary logic or teleology of "positional-observations" arguing from an imagined YEC past to a preconceived YEC present with logical inferencing and deductional YEC conjectures towards future expectations and biblical surmise. Thus, a YEC-based Bible will see God differently than a non-YEC Bible with its resultant doctrines. The same will go with YEC-based church doctrine and dogma with their rules of "biblical" engagement with assumed "non-biblical" belief systems as a YEC person would project or hold towards any evolutionary subject portending towards the subject of evolutionary creationism.
Obviously, the error that began at the roots of the YEC argument now becomes even more pronounced as it expands into this next level of metaphysical (or, spiritual) argumentation. However, to be fair, the Christian evolutionist (I prefer the term evolutionary creationist over the older term of theistic evolutionist for reasons previously written about here on this blog) essentially does the same. However, it is hoped that this direction of thinking is based upon a much better foundation allowing for scientific observations than the speculative (and in my estimation, contrived) YEC position unhinged from the evolutionary sciences with its concurrent archaeological and anthropological discoveries both primitive and ancient.
Obviously, the error that began at the roots of the YEC argument now becomes even more pronounced as it expands into this next level of metaphysical (or, spiritual) argumentation. However, to be fair, the Christian evolutionist (I prefer the term evolutionary creationist over the older term of theistic evolutionist for reasons previously written about here on this blog) essentially does the same. However, it is hoped that this direction of thinking is based upon a much better foundation allowing for scientific observations than the speculative (and in my estimation, contrived) YEC position unhinged from the evolutionary sciences with its concurrent archaeological and anthropological discoveries both primitive and ancient.
My own YEC indoctrination began with the reading of Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth and Henry M. Morris' The Genesis Record in my teen years. But it was also coupled with well-meaning biblical preaching from my churches, bible-school experiences, and my own set biases about God and His Word. Over time (and based upon my own concurrent studies in science and math) I became less apprehensive towards the subject of cosmologic, geologic, and biologic evolutionary formation, and more open to the idea that my initial youthful prejudices may have been ill-informed and naive. Now don't get me wrong, I willingly attended and participated in any YEC conference that was in my area... so I am well-acquainted with the early days of YEC argument against science and it's projected "manipulation" by evolutionary atheists and agnostics with an axe to grind against any-and-all things "God." The arguments I heard have been well-drilled into my mind and heart, but forgive me when I say that I began to find their arguments fabricated and baseless. And once they became suspect, they fell hard and fast, with no further personal need for their support, or my own personal need to cling to them any longer, when becoming more aware of the fallacy of their foundation and argument.
Even so, it took a long while for me to move past my early YEC indoctrination. Probably several decades to say the least while I began to read and explore Earth's evolutionary history (incredibly, Stephen Hawking helped here, though it was written from an implied non-God, mechanistic perspective). And it wasn't until wandering through the large display halls of the Royal Tyrell Dinosaur Museum in the badlands of Alberta that I began to understand the sublimity of the Lord's creational handiwork as I look upon the fossilized (and not precast) bones of ancient reptilian beasts. The force of the argument came home in the ancient seas beds of this most ancient of primeval of worlds. Consequently, the grandness of God's primeval design, and the majesty of His almighty council, demanded my past theological training to absorb and reflect upon the truths of both the process and the Creator of evolutionary creationism. In essence, I would need to re-think my whole approach to biblical studies, doctrines, and my faith in general because of this belated realization. Essentially, this effort was initiated but several years ago when I began developing this blogsite for a fuller, more post-evangelic depiction of biblical doctrine and dogma. And it has been my steady pleasure to re-write (or re-envisage) orthodox church doctrine from a non-YEC, evolutionary informed basis telling of God our Creator from every conceivable viewpoint and angle as I have had time to develop these ideas with so few resources as aide and guide. Though I would later discover those same resources were everywhere about in so simple a place as Wikipedia.com. It just required a different lens. A lens that would admit God into evolution and not withhold His presence from its topic.
Even so, it took a long while for me to move past my early YEC indoctrination. Probably several decades to say the least while I began to read and explore Earth's evolutionary history (incredibly, Stephen Hawking helped here, though it was written from an implied non-God, mechanistic perspective). And it wasn't until wandering through the large display halls of the Royal Tyrell Dinosaur Museum in the badlands of Alberta that I began to understand the sublimity of the Lord's creational handiwork as I look upon the fossilized (and not precast) bones of ancient reptilian beasts. The force of the argument came home in the ancient seas beds of this most ancient of primeval of worlds. Consequently, the grandness of God's primeval design, and the majesty of His almighty council, demanded my past theological training to absorb and reflect upon the truths of both the process and the Creator of evolutionary creationism. In essence, I would need to re-think my whole approach to biblical studies, doctrines, and my faith in general because of this belated realization. Essentially, this effort was initiated but several years ago when I began developing this blogsite for a fuller, more post-evangelic depiction of biblical doctrine and dogma. And it has been my steady pleasure to re-write (or re-envisage) orthodox church doctrine from a non-YEC, evolutionary informed basis telling of God our Creator from every conceivable viewpoint and angle as I have had time to develop these ideas with so few resources as aide and guide. Though I would later discover those same resources were everywhere about in so simple a place as Wikipedia.com. It just required a different lens. A lens that would admit God into evolution and not withhold His presence from its topic.
To my further surprise I have found that I am not alone, and am presently in the forefront with a number of biblical scholars and theologians who have likewise been doing the same. Some I have followed here, whilst others I have not. Overall, the impact of this mindful research upon biblical doctrine has become immense. And as any long term reader to this site will tell you, it has been a fun and exciting time of discovery and re-examination of our Christian faith - it's wonders and the intricacies of how it all falls together in a nice and neat heap. But the greatest wonder of all was in discovering how amazing our God really is when uncoupled from my hardened lines of set theological boundaries and non-admits. Once those belief-barriers fell I soon rediscovered both God and His Word in a new and more fulfilling way. It has been a journey full of surprise and wonder. One that I do not regret and am quite passionate about.In conclusion, what attracted me to Dr. Olson's article below is not his arguments about "God in the Gaps" vs. science (Dr. Olson comes from the old school of orthodoxy, and is himself, on a similar journey to mine but more along the lines of resurrecting the historical doctrines of the church according to contemporary theology and scholarship). It is his studied observation that a YEC-informed doctrinal position predisposes one towards YEC-based metaphysical arguments about God and His Word. Even as an Evolutionary Creationist would likewise hold a resultant doctrinal position influencing church doctrine and dogma. Hence, my real attraction to this topic today is the explanation of how one's epistemology affects, informs, and influences one's metaphysical positions.... Hence, the caution to be careful to investigate the path you trod (or inherited, as was my own personal background).
Not to mention that we do great error in thinking about God in the objective terms of syllogistic argument rather than in the subjective terms of an "I-Thou" relationship. To argue about God and His Word is perhaps necessary, but it will miss the central need of the Creator beheld in meaningful relationship with His creation (and yet, either position will tell you that!). That God is no less a thing, than we our things. That God is a living entity bound to His creation as living entities with all the sublime import that that means as relational beings in fellowship with one another. That we do harm to ourselves and to our fellowship in trying to capture God as an argument or principle when He most desires to capture us with His love, faithfulness, and presence. That was the real attractor here when reading Dr. Olson's ensuring chapter on the "God of the Gaps." That God desires us as persons - and not defenders or apologists to His existence (or creation). That He has created His creation in terms of communion, presence, relationship. And to this accord I think both the Young Earth Creationists and Evolutionary Creationist can agree and attest as brothers and sisters in the Lord, who is our great Creator-Redeemer. Peace.
R.E. Slater
March 4, 2014
* * * * * * * * * *
The “God of the Gaps”: Right Use, Wrong Use
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/02/the-god-of-the-gaps-right-use-wrong-use/
by Roger Olson
February 23, 2014
One recurring theme here and in other evangelical engagements with science is the idea of the “God of the gaps.” I’m not sure who coined the phrase; I’ve heard it attributed to Bonhoeffer (from Letters and Papers from Prison), but I don’t remember him specifically using that phrase. He certainly criticized the idea of a “deus ex machine” brought in to fill the gaps—holes in the natural order science cannot (so far) explain.
Generally speaking, “God of the gaps” is used by theologians to describe the use of God to explain the otherwise unexplainable in the natural order. One notable trend in modern, Western culture has been the gradual but steady closing of the gaps by science. The legitimate fear of many theologians is that insofar as people base their belief in God on such gaps, their belief in God will have less and less warrant. Eventually, possibly, so it is said, all the gaps will be closed so that God has no “job,” so to speak.
I would like to suggest that there are really two uses of the God of the gaps idea. One is wrong and one is right—from a biblical, evangelical theological perspective.
The wrong use is to make alleged gaps in the natural order the foundation of Christian belief in God. The problem here isn’t only that as the gaps are closed by science belief in God will have less foundation. It is also that true Christianity is not - and never has been - based only the rational necessity of God. As German theologian Eberhard Jüngel says in God as the Mystery of the World, God is (for Christians) “more than necessary.” By “necessary” he means “to explain the world and general human experience.” As Jüngel and his former colleague Jürgen Moltmann (both taught at Tübingen) both never tired of saying, Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics.
Another problem with the God of the gaps idea is that it objectifies God; it treats God as a thing more than as a person. As Emil Brunner always said, our knowledge of God is through I-Thou encounter, not finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object; the God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never object (in the sense of being “thingy”—a force or power or principle that can be manipulated).
All these are good reasons to avoid the wrong use of the God of the gaps idea. However, this is not the only use of it.
From a Christian life and world perspective there are gaps in reality unexplainable by science alone. One is the Christian’s I-Thou encounter with God! Another is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Another is why some things are objectively wrong in a sense more than “so decided by us.” I would argue that another is why we are here. Not how did we come to be here, but why are we here? Science cannot explain any of those parts of reality as understood through a classical Christian lens.
So what is the “use” of this God of the gaps idea? I would argue it is not to attempt to put Christianity (or religion) on a par with science in terms of “explaining things” so that skeptics must believe what we believe (or be fools). It is rather to explain to our own and inquiring and open minds the objective basis of these realities.
Now, does that make God an “object?” Not necessarily, although that is always a danger vigilantly to be avoided. That God exists objectively and not as a “necessary idea” or the “whence of our spiritual life” or “human self-transcendence” (etc.) is essential to Christianity.
In this second use of the God of the gaps idea there is no intention of encroaching on science’s territory insofar as science stays to its limits. A thoughtful, reflective Christian believes that there may come a day when science explains everything in the natural order. All the gaps there are then closed. Insofar as God’s very existence has been based on those gaps, God will be out of a job. Oh, except—the one “big gap” of (not in) the natural order will remain—why there is a natural order at all! Science cannot in principle address that issue. That is a metaphysical question and every knowledgeable, reflective person knows that. Much of the conflict between science and religion could dissolve if both religious people and scientists would stick to their boundaries. Still, using God as an explanation for why there is a natural order (rather than nothing or something else) does not amount to “Christian knowledge of God” by itself. And it’s not a sound beginning point or foundation for Christianity because it is always possible for a reasonable person to simply say “There is no reason or explanation for the natural order; it is ultimate.” Of course, as Hans Küng has shown in Does God Exist? An Answer for Today, that leads logically to nihilism. Still, a person may reasonably choose nihilism.
The right use of the God of the gaps idea has nothing to do with convincing skeptics that they must believe in God or be fools. It has to do with explaining to Christians and open, inquiring seekers, what our God does that science can never explain because it is beyond the scope of science. What does God do? God sends Jesus and appears as Jesus among us as one of us to redeem us. God raises Jesus from the dead and gives us life abundant and free (from guilt and shame). God encounters us in Jesus through the Holy Spirit and calls us to decision for or against him and his Kingdom. God gives us hope and courage to live optimistic lives in the face of death, decay and destruction. God enables us to love the unlovable.
All of these realities are unexplainable by science—from a Christian perspective. Science can try to explain them, but, from a Christian perspective, it never can precisely because they are supernatural (above the natural order as studied and explained by science). Our job as Christian intellectuals is not to defeat science or show why science does not explain “parts” of the natural order. Our job as Christian intellectuals is to affirm and embrace legitimate science (that stays within its limits) while pushing back against metaphysicians pretending to speak as scientists to “explain” what science cannot in principle explain.
Now, right here is where many people stumble because of a category confusion. They think that all religious talk about what science cannot explain is falling into the wrong God of the gaps mentality and into anti-science mentality. And they think that all talk of “the supernatural” excludes God from the natural order in deist fashion. Neither of those is necessary. One can value science while at the same time insisting it stay within its limits. One can affirm God as the author and immanent sustainer of the natural order while speaking of God’s activity “from outside” (a spatial metaphor) the natural order. The category confusion I speak of is that between speaking of what science cannot explain in principle and what science has not yet explained. There is a difference. In the right use of the God of the gaps one does not appeal to what science has not yet explained but could one day explain. There, instead, one appeals to what lies outside of science’s purview.
Science’s purview is natural cause and effect relationships that can be mathematically described and expressed. If a person chooses to believe that’s all there is (naturalism), no Christian can give a reason why he or she cannot do so without being a fool. All we can do with such a person is witness and ask questions that deal with meanings and values (which I would argue cannot be explained scientifically). However, if the person rejects objective (not humanly invented) meanings and values and if the person rejects my witness, there is nothing I can point to and say “That is God’s work! Believe or remain a fool!” That’s why we speak of faith and the work of the Holy Spirit and surrender to God’s will as necessary for true belief in the true God—the God we worship as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and ultimately Jesus.
 |
| The Royal Tyrell Museum of Palenontology |
