Journal
of the American Scientific Affiliation 38.4 (Dec. 1986) 244-50.
American Scientific Affiliation © 1986
cited with permission.
A Taxonomy of Creation
David
L. Wilcox
Biology
Department
Eastern
College
The spectrum of possible viewpoints on
origins is explored and
reclassified
on the basis of three levels of questions.
First, what is the
relationship
of God to the natural world? Second, how
might God act
(or not act)
to produce novelty and direction? Third,
what is the
pattern of
appearance?
Few disagreements in modern thought are as
confus-
ing as the
debate over the relationship of God to the
creation of
the natural world. Certainly real issues
are
at stake, but
one gropes after them, confused by clouds
of
rhetorical smoke. The confusion could be
much
reduced by
clearer definitions from both "sides." Both
"evolutionists"
and "creationists" do much categorical
pigeon-holing
and give multiple definitions to their
banner
words--evolution and creation. For
example
(Fig. 1),
evolution has been defined as "fact" (observed
change in
gene frequency); as "mechanism" (neo-
Darwinian
natural selection); as "scenario" (the descent
of species
from common ancestors by transformation);
as a
"central paradigm" ("Nothing in Biology makes
sense except
in the light of evolution"--Dobzhansky,
1973), and
as a materialistic "weltanschaung" ("The
whole of
reality is evolution, a single process of self-
transformation."--Huxley,
1953). The meaning of the
word
"'Creation" has been equally abused in exactly the
same way
(see Fig. 2). What seems to be needed
for
communication
is some new way to classify viewpoints.
The goal of
this paper is the beginning of such a
"taxonomy
of creation."
David L. Wilcox 244b
The
Relationship of God to the Natural World
The first principle of systematics is that
some differ-
ences in
structure are more important than others.
Part
of the fuel
for the "origins" debate has been a lack of
insight into
which conceptual differences are central
and
distinctive, and which are secondary and peripher-
al. I suggest that in such a proposed
classification the
world-view
is central. In relation to science, the
most
important
conceptual distinctive in world-views is the
relationship
between the cosmos (matter) and Deity. I
will discuss
four distinct aspects of this relationship, and
will
distinguish a spectrum of five world-views, based
on the
presumed degree of autonomy of the natural
order. This classification is summarized in Figures
3
and 4. The dominant world-view of our age among
scientists
is materialistic naturalism, which holds the
universe to
be completely autonomous in every aspect
of its
existence. On the other hand, both the
ancient
Hebrews and
the early modem scientists (Robert Boyle,
for
instance) held a full theism, viewing the universe as
completely
dependent in every aspect (see Fig. 3)
(Klaaren,
1977). The three
"intermediate" views listed
in Figure 4
hold the cosmos to be autonomous in some
senses,
dependent in others. Figure 4 is not
intended to
be an
exhaustive classification, but is limited to view-
points which
consider a Deity (if existing) to be an
eternal,
omnipotent spirit other than the cosmos in
essence
(i.e., pantheistic views are not considered.)
The first two aspects of reality shown in
Figure 4,
origin and
intervention, apply to the possibility of
A Taxonomy of Creation 245a
transcendent
divine activity, meaning divine activity
which is
"ex machina." God acts from
outside the
natural
order, contra "natural law."
These aspects are
the origin
of the system (cosmos, matter, etc.) and the
openness of
the existing system (cosmos) to outside
intervention
or intrusion. The second two aspects,
existence
and direction, apply to the possibility of
immanent
divine activity; i.e, God acting in concert
with the
natural order, through "natural law."
These
aspects
therefore imply a certain relationship between
"natural
law" and God. They concern the
continuing
existence
and behavior of matter and the possibility of
directive
activity taking place through (using) natural
law. In the next few paragraphs, I will briefly
explore
the meaning
of autonomy versus dependence for each
aspect.
Few ultimate options exist for the origin
of the
cosmos. A truly autonomous origin (Fig. 4; origin)
could
only be
thought to happen in one way: the
material
system must
be in some sense cyclic. Either mass/
energy is
eternal (presumably oscillating), or energy is
fed backward
"past" time (the hyper-dimensional
space-time
continuum) to emerge at the "creation."
Neither of
these is a commonly held view at present.
Most
materialists are simply willing to live with mys-
tery,
accepting a universe generating itself ex nihilo via
the laws of
nature. The alternative viewpoint,
depen-
dent
origins, posits that a sufficient cause for the initial
creation of
the system must be outside the system.
The
Christian
view of God is especially satisfying because
He has both
the will to act and sufficient power.
One
implication
of a dependent origin is that the laws
governing
the structure of the cosmos are expressions of
His will.
Autonomy of the cosmos from outside
intrusion, the
second
aspect (Fig. 4; intervention), is a statement that
there can be
no "singularities," points where physical
A Taxonomy of Creation 245b
events
within the cosmos must be explained in terms of
causes from
outside the cosmos. The cosmos is either
considered
to be "all there is" or to be somehow closed
to the
reality without; or, alternately, the reality with-
out is
considered to be of such a nature that it would
never
"interfere" with lawful processes of the cosmos.
If the
cosmos is considered open to intrusive action,
natural law
is not denied, although there is a possibility
of events
which can not be explained completely from
causes
within the system. In that case, science
could
only
describe the boundaries of the singularity, rather
like a
description of a black hole.
The third aspect of reality, existence
(Fig. 4), repre-
sents a
watershed in world-views. A cosmos
autono-
mous in
existence does not need a sustaining Deity in
order to
continue in existence. The law governing
its
continuance
and operation exists directly in its elemen-
tary
particles. Such a cosmos can live,
though God be
dead. Natural law itself is autonomous. There can be no
doubt that
the Biblical writers view "nature" as com-
pletely
dependent upon the continuing will and action
of God. In such a viewpoint natural law itself is the
orderly
expression of the presently active will of God,
and is
therefore exterior to the system, rather than
being
"on the particle." If God is
dead, or if His "mind
wanders,"
the universe is non-existent. Due to the
positivistic
heritage of the last century, we have an
instinctive
feeling that science is only possible if natural
law is an
intrinsic characteristic of the particle.
How-
ever,
Klaaren (1977) has argued cogently that it was the
view that
law was contingent to the will of God which
led to the
rise of modern science. Science simply
requires
law, not a particular sort of law.
The fourth aspect, direction (Fig. 4),
looks even
deeper into
the concept of natural law, and may be
even more
foreign to the contemporary mindset. If
law
is
considered to be a rigid framework which can not, or
A Taxonomy of Creation 245c
will not,
permit directive action on the part of God,
then the
universe is autonomous. Even a
sustaining law
based on
God's active will can be thought of being as
completely
deterministic and non-directive as the most
materialistic
of viewpoints. Must one hold such a view
if the world
is to be made safe for science? Despite
the
David L. Wilcox 246a
Materialism Natural
(World-View)
The Common Selection
Descent of
Species
Common Ancestry- Changing Gene
Central Paradigm Frequencies
Figure
1. Evolution -- How to not define a word
precisely.
Theism Divine
Fiat
(World-View) as
Directive
Special
Common Ideas Creation
(Ideals) in the of Species
Species
Mind of God Stasis
Figure
2. Creation--How to not define a word
precisely.
fears of the
twentieth century, modern science began
with a
world-view which considered the Providential
direction of
the events of nature fully acceptable.
Nor
was this
direction seen as antagonistic to the concept of
secondary
causes, but, rather, supportive of them
(Klaaren,
1977). This is the position spelled out
in the
Westminster
Confession of Faith, for instance. A
dependent
universe, in this sense, is one in which God
continuously
directs all natural events, without tension,
through
natural law. I think it important to
remember
that this is
no peripheral idea, but one central to the
scriptural
picture of Divine lordship. Surely we
expect
Him to act
in this fashion if we pray requesting Him to
meet
specific needs.
David L. Wilcox 246b
How Might
Novelty and Direction Be Produced?
Central to the debate concerning
biological origins
are the
questions of the source of novelty and the source
of
direction. Such questions can form a second level of
our
"taxonomic hierarchy," as illustrated in Figure 5.
Materialists,
as well as deists and theists, differ on these
questions. If true randomness is characteristic of the
movement of
atomic particles, such "stochastic" events
may add
novelty, and even provide direction. If
the
cosmos is
truly deterministic, all events and structures
were
implicit in the nature of the origin, although
many of
these events may look random to our limited
viewpoint. The most popular viewpoint is a hybrid one,
considering
novelty to be due to random events (muta-
tion) and
direction to be locally deterministic (natural
selection).
Full deism may be divided into the same
groups as
materialism. If the cosmos is deterministic, then all the
events were
programmed at creation to unroll in time.
Both novelty
and direction would be fixed by the initial
program. Direction is set by the characteristics of
natural law,
and novelty by the initial state of the
cosmos. If the cosmos is stochastic, then God could
program
potentials, but could not know how the results
would work
out. Although significant novelty and
direction
would be implicit from the beginning, the
stochastic
openness would contribute to both in deter-
mining
outcomes. One unique differentiation for
biol-
ogy within
full deism would be the mode of species
creation;
from nothing, from abiotic matter, or from a
(just)
previously created species. In the first
two cases,
similarity
would be due only to common ideas in God's
mind. In the third, it would also indicate
"common
ancestry"
(although not due to "natural" processes).
Intrusive
deism may also be divided into determinis-
tic and
stochastic viewpoints. In the
deterministic view,
David L. Wilcox 246c
all events
are still programmed for both novelty and
direction. However, instead of all programming being
done at the
time of origin, it is also done at many small
intrusive
"mini-origins" as time passes.
A stochastic
view would
tend to view intrusive events as not only
creative and
directive, but also as possibly corrective of
"wrong"
novelty input from stochastic processes (or
perhaps,
free will).
Legal deists will tend to look at the universe
in almost
exactly the
same ways that the intrusive deists do.
However,
they will view intervention in a fundamen-
A Taxonomy of Creation 247a
Transcendence Immanence
(God acting from
out- (God acting through)
side "natural
law") {inside} "natural law")
Origin Intervention Existence Direction
Biblical Cosmos is dependent upon God
for all aspects
(Full Theism)
Materialism Cosmos is autonomous from God for
all aspects
Figure
3. Aspects of the Relationship of God to
the Natural World
Origin: How did the cosmos come into being?--first
origins
Intervention: Is the cosmos open to God's direct acts from
outside?
Existence: Can the cosmos exist without God? Law in the
particles?
Direction: Does God use natural law to direct events'
outcome?
tally
different fashion, since they differ in their concept
of natural
law. In intrusive intervention, God
moves
against the
resistance of natural law which continues in
force. The legal deist, however, will view
intervention
as local
points where natural law is temporarily can-
celled (or
changed) in favor of some alternative divine
action. Creation is, of course, that point when God
first
began to act
in the fashion of natural law.
Full theists are significantly different
in their view-
point, since
law itself is viewed as an avenue through
which God
works directively and continuously. Nov-
elty could
therefore arise by programming of the initial
structures,
by "guided" deterministic events, by "chos-
en"
stochastic events, and by "outside" intervention
(that which
appeared to be an intrusive event).
Theistic
viewpoints
might be distinguished on the basis of which
of these
mechanisms are emphasized. It would,
how-
ever, be
hard in a given instance to distinguish between
A Taxonomy of Creation 247b
God's
various modes of operation, since all are God's
hand in
action. "Laws" are not seen as
a description of
what God has
made, but rather of His present and free
actions. His creative Word of command still actively
reverberates
from the structure of reality.
Transcendence Immanence
(God acts from with- (God acts from with-
out "natural law) in "natural law)
Origin
Intervention Existence Direction
1. Full
Theism D D D D
II. Legal
Deism D D D A
III.
Intrusive Deism D D A A
IV. Full
Deism D A A A
V.
Materialism A A A A
Figure
4. A Classification--Relationship of God
to Natural World
A = Universe is autonomous from God in
this aspect of its
being.
D = Universe is dependent upon God for
this aspect of its
being.
What Is the
Pattern of Appearance?
Given the "phyla" of world-views
(what is the rela-
tionship of
God to the world?), and the "classes" of
sources of
novelty (How does God act upon the world?),
I would
suggest that the logical "orders" are the
scenarios of
the appearance of novelty (When did He
do it
?). The four most extreme possibilities
for what the
fossil
record shows would be as follows: 1) all
species
appeared
suddenly at about the same time, 2) all
species
appeared suddenly, but at different times, 3) all
species
appeared gradually at different times, and 4) all
A Taxonomy of Creation 247c
species
appeared gradually about the same time.
Inter-
mediate
views are possible, of course, as illustrated in
Figure
6. One may hold any scenario of
appearance
with each of
the world-views in Figure 4, although
acceptable
explanations for the observed phenoma
would vary.
Space will not permit a complete
description of all
combinations,
but, as a brief illustration, consider the
possible
explanations for the sudden appearance of a
species. A materialist might explain it as due to
random
events which
produced a successfully changed regula-
tory genome,
or to deterministic events which reached
David L. Wilcox 248a
Types of
Sources Dependent Upon God Autonomous From God
Deterministic:
Providential Selection Natural Selection
due to
environ- (I) (II,
III, IV, V)
mental
direction
Deterministic: Providential Creation Directionless Mutation
not due to (I, II) (III,
IV, V)
environmental
direction
Non-Deterministic
Intrusive Creation Stochastic
Mutation
causes
outside (I, II, III, IV) (III, IV, V)
of natural
law
Figure
5. Alternative Sources of Novelty and
Direction
World views which might accept each
source are indicated
by Roman numerals--following Fig. 4.
I. Full Theism IV. Full Deism
II. Legal Deism V. Materialism
III. Intrusive Deism
a threshold
somewhere (in environment or genome)
and caused a
sudden change in state. A full deist
might
agree, but
point out that the species was planned for in
the initial
state of the universe, or at least was a
reasonable
possibility. An intrusive deist might
accept
the above as
possibilities, but also suggest that new
programming
might have taken place at that point in
geological
time. A legal deist would agree, but
would
emphasize
that new programming could have been
caused by a
local change in the laws of nature which
would allow
species modification. The theist would
probably
admit that all the above are possible explana-
tions, but
would point out that in any case we are only
distinguishing
between the various overlapping modes
of action
which God might use.
David L. Wilcox 248b
Synthesis:
Clarifying the Debate
In closing this discussion, I will try to
apply the
framework
which has been developed to four of the
positions
which are most commonly distinguished in
the origins
debate (Pun, 1982). These positions
(men-
tioned in
Fig. 6) are usually entitled Recent (sometimes
called Fiat
or Special) Creation(ism), Progressive Cre-
ation(ism),
Theistic Evolution(ism), and Atheistic Evo-
lution(ism),
and are often characterized as a series
going from
the best to the worst. There is, of
course, a
difference
of opinion concerning which end is "best"
and which
end is "worst." You can
sometimes tell a
writer's
orientation by the end to which he attaches
"ism." In any case, it becomes evident that these terms
do not
represent single clear world-views, but hetero-
genous and
contradictory assemblages.
Atheistic Evolution(ism), as usually
defined, is
merely
materialism; i.e., the world-view that the uni-
verse is
completely autonomous and therefore God is
not
necessary. In the minds of many, it is
also identified
exclusively
with the continuous appearance scenario,
stochastic
novelty formation and deterministic direc-
tion; i.e.,
the Modern Synthesis as evolutionary mecha-
nism. Such a confusion of categories gives the
impres-
sion that
the neutral mutation debate, the proposal of
punctuated
equilibrium, or "directed panspermia,"
represent
covert attempts on the part of certain scien-
tists to
subvert or to compromise with a theistic posi-
tion. This simply is not true. These theories of mecha-
nism are
alternate scenarios or explanations, equally
derivative
from a mechanistic world-view.
Recent Creation(ism), as usually
described, is an
assemblage
of viewpoints which agree only on a spe-
cific scenario
of the timing of creation (a single sudden
appearance),
along with a definite rejection of auton-
omy for the
cosmos in origin. It is not a cohesive
world-view,
however, since supporters can be full,
David L. Wilcox 248c
intrusive,
or legal deists, or theists. Currently,
their
most popular
view of the nature of "created kinds"
admits that
change is possible, but only within the
limits of
the genetic potentials built into the initial
population. (The original "kinds" are not
usually iden-
tified with
species by modern "recent creationists," but
most are
reluctant to go beyond genera, or perhaps
sub-families,
in trying to identify them.) Since God's
present
providential activity in the biological world is
not seen as
directive and as having purpose, this,
particular
concept of the limits to change is a fully
A Taxonomy of Creation 249a
Instantaneous
*John Calvin's *Recent
Creation
viewpoint R P
a *Panspermia U
G *Adaptive Radiations t N
R e C
A Mode of Appearance T
D U
U C A
A h T
L a E
n D
g
*Theistic Evolution e *Progressive Creation
*The Modern
Synthesis *Punctuated Equilibrium
Slow
Figure
6. Variation in Scenarios of the
Appearance of Novelty
Suggested locations on the co-ordinate
system for various
viewpoints
deistic and
deterministic concept of the source of
novelty,
(although individuals who hold this view in
biology are
often "theistic" in other areas of thought.) A
true theist
can not accept the idea that any event in any
realm can
occur except due to the plan and present
taction of
God. The physical source of the new
"kind"
might be
thought to be new matter, abiotic material, or
a previously
created "kind." In any case,
the creation
process is
held to be initiating, very rapid, non-
reproducable
and not due to the laws of nature. An
older
concept of species stasis (circa .1840) identified
the limits
of change with a "platonic ideal" species
image in the
mind of God, and was therefore more
clearly
theistic, since God was thought to be continu-
ously acting
(via natural law) to bring the (fugitive)
A Taxonomy of Creation 249b
species back
to its designed ideal, or to recreate it if it
became extinct.
Progressive creation(ism) also seems to
represent a
heterogenous
set of world views which are agreed on
the concept
that species ("kinds") appear suddenly
(special
creation), but at considerable intervals, due to
intrusive
divine acts. Progressive creationists
include
both
intrusive deists, legal deists and full theists. Varia-
tion in view
exists regarding the source of novelty, with
the most
common view similar to that of the recent
creationist. The "kind" is considered to be
initially
programmed
with no later modification, a typical
intrusive
deistic viewpoint. As in recent
creationism,
the physical
source of a new "kind" might be thought
to be a new
matter, abiotic material, or a previously
created
"kind," and the creation process is held to be
interventional,
very rapid, and non-reproducable.
A full deist could propose that such a
pattern is due to
an initially
programmed punctuated equilibrium, or a
theist, that
it represents a divinely directed punctuated
equilibrium. Such views would not be included in this
viewpoint
(as I understand its proponents, at least),
despite
species origins being both sudden and due to
God, because
they would still be due to natural law
rather than
to intrusive intervention. Such
viewpoints
would
usually be cast into the next category.
In any inadequate system of
classification, some
category
must pick up items which do not fit anywhere.
That is
probably the most accurate definition of what
people mean
by Theistic Evolution(ism). Everyone has
a somewhat
different, often pejorative, definition,
depending
upon exactly how they define the other
three
categories. In general, all concede that
"Theistic
Evolutionists"
accept both the existence of God, and
"regular
evolution." For some, that means a
full deism
with an
otherwise autonomous cosmos evolving in a
fully
materialistic fashion. Others view it as
"the God of
A Taxonomy of Creation 249c
the
Gaps," a variant of intrusive deism in which
materialistic
evolution is occasionally helped along by
divine
intervention. Since these views concede
auton-
omy of law
to the material particle, they ought not to be
called
"theistic." Recent
creationists often mean by the
term anyone
who believes in God (in any sense), yet
questions
the sudden appearance model, thereby
including
the progressive creationists, who reject evolu-
tion as
completely as they do. Materialists may
mean
anyone who
is "scientist first, religious second." Such a
potpourri is
not a position, but a conceptual trash can.
David L. Wilcox 250a
Is a theistic evolutionary scenario, in
the real mean-
ing of the
words, possible? Not unless one first
limits the
meaning of
"evolution" to a single concept, for
instance, to
the descent of one species from another by
natural
law. In this I follow distinctions and
definitions
used by
Charles Hodge, the well known
theologian
of the last century, as he considered Dar-
win's
theories (1874). Anyone who is a fully
biblical
theist must
consider ordinary processes controlled by
natural law
to be as completely and deliberately the
wonderful
acts of God as any miracle, equally contin-
gent upon
His free and unhindered will. Miracles,
after
all, are
given as signs, not as demonstrations of God's
normal
activities. What then might a
"theistic evolu-
tion"
look like? One example of a possible
theistic
scenario
would be this: God designs and produces the
cosmos, and
all of life, by immediately and directly
controlled
gradual continuous change due to micro-
creation
(mutation) and providential direction (natural
selection)
using only natural law. (In parallel
with two
previous
terms, such a view could be called "Continu-
ous
Creation" after the scenario of appearance which it
advocates.) It could not be held by any of the three
forms of
deism because it depends upon God directing
through
natural events. Only a full theist could
hold it.
The true
"scandal" of theism is not that it concedes too
much to
materialism, but that it refuses to concede so
much as the
spin of a single electron.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the tension between the
materialistic
naturalism
of our day, and the theistic viewpoint of the
scripture
may be resolved in one of two fashions.
Either
one may
choose a world-view half-way between the
two, as
illustrated in Figure 4; or one may consider
"naturalism
" as a special simplified sub-set of theism,
just as
Newtonian physics forms a special simplified
David L. Wilcox 250b
sub-set of
Einsteinian physics. Materialistic
explana-
tions are
useful within the limits set by their simplifying
assumptions. These simplifying assumptions are the a
priori
framework of twentieth century science.
Theistic
or deistic
explanations therefore are not acceptable,
which is
fine as long as the materialistic model of
explanation
(episteme) is recognized as a model. The
value of a
model, a simplified representation of reality,
is to allow
a more complete exploration of how well the
assumptions
of the model match reality. The danger
of
any model is
the tendency to identify the model with
the reality
which it represents.
In this paper, I have been proposing a
classification
of
"scientific" views or models (interpretations of
nature). Naturally one will choose corresponding
scrip-
tural models
(interpretations of scripture) (Barnett and
Phillips,
1985). Such models do not show
one-for-one
identity,
however. Differing models of what
scripture
means may be
held with the same scientific model, and
people with
identical scriptural interpretations may
differ in
their scientific models. In general, the
Scrip-
tures'
proclamations about the nature of God are easier
to
understand than its occasional statements about the
specific
techniques He used at particular times.
I see two things as critical for this
debate. First, the
Scriptures
are unalterably theistic, so we have no real
options in
world-view. For example, we must not
adopt
deistic
positions to limit God's possible activities to our
favorite
scenario. Second, we need a humble
spirit
concerning
the correctness of our conclusions-and
exclusions. This paper has presented three levels of
questions
which serve to differentiate various positions
on origins,
giving as many as one hundred distinctly
different
positions which might be (and commonly are)
held on this
subject. It is not surprising that the
debate
has become
rigid and polarized. Complexity
bewilders
and
discourages. Simplicity has a seductive
beauty.
David L. Wilcox 250c
(Un)fortunately,
neither God, nor His universe, are as
simple as we
are.
REFERENCES
Barnett, S.
F. and W. G. Phillips. 1985. Genesis and Origins: Focus on
Interpretation. Presbyterian
Journal, 44: 5-10.
Dobzhansky,
T. 1973. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the
light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35:125-129.
Hodge, C.
1874. What is Darwinism?, as quoted in The Princeton
Theology 1812-1921, ed. M. A. Noll. 1983. Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishers,
Huxley, J.
S. 1953. Evolution in Action. Harper and Brothers, New
Klaaren, E.
M. 1977. Religious Origins of Modern Science. W. B.
Eerdmans,
Pun, P. T.
1982. Evolution, Nature and Scripture in Conflict?
Zondervan,
This material is cited with gracious permission from:
ASA
http://www.asa3.org/
Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: