Philip Clayton, “Emergence From Physics to Theology: Toward a Panoramic View”, Zygon, vol. 41, no. 3 (September 2006), 675-688.
Clayton clearly denies counterfactual divine action at physical and chemical levels. I deny it not because I believe God is metaphysically incapable of altering such systems; in fact, I assume that God could change these systems if God chose to. Instead, Clayton is forced to this conclusion by considerations concerning the problem of evil (Clayton and Knapp forthcoming). If God once changed the outcome of a physical process, wouldn’t God be responsible for not similarly diverting falling rocks from all other groups of hikers? For that matter, wouldn’t God be responsible for not intervening in physical processes in all cases where suffering could thereby be avoided or reduced? Yet God does not consistently intervene in this way. Moreover, were God consistently to act in this fashion to reduce or eliminate suffering, the conditions for the emergence of finite agents would not be met, as the order and regularity required for us to develop and exercise agency would be missing. Thus, Knapp and Clayton accept the “not even once” principle: If God wishes for finite agents to develop over evolutionary history, God cannot coercively alter the outcome of any purely physical or chemical system at any time. Whether God can lure biological organisms without coercion depends on one’s understanding of those organisms at each stage of evolution.[1]
Emergence provides a way for theists to speak of the response of agents to the divine while remaining consistent with the scientific study of natural history.[2]
[1] Philip Clayton, “Emergence From Physics to Theology: Toward a Panoramic View”, Zygon, vol. 41, no. 3 (September 2006), 682.
[2] Philip Clayton, “Emergence From Physics to Theology: Toward a Panoramic View”, Zygon, vol. 41, no. 3 (September 2006), 682.