wrong tree

David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:30:05 -0400

>My methaphor about a tree brought about some good points. Let me take
>the opportunity to say what I believe that "tree" to be, that tree which
>I believe IDers are trying to uproot. The three is Naturalism. The
>problem with this tree is that it will not allow any other tree in its
>place or near it. All types of "Divine" creation or "Divine" evolution
>theories will always be "out" the "true" realm of the science of
>origins. I don't think I said anything new, most people already know the
>arguments of the IDers (the Firing Line Program for example), but I
>thought it best to say what that three may be in their eyes. So, the
>tree is not "evolution" but naturalism.

I believe almost all of the theistic views on creation are seeking
to uproot the tree of naturalism. However, most waste large amounts of
time tugging on the evolution tree, and several waste time tugging on trees
that appear older than about 10,000 years, while failing to directly take
on the weed of naturalism.
E.g., I was quite surprised in reading Moreland's essay in
Creation Hypothesis to find no mention of the self-contradiction in a quote
from David Hull. On p. 53, Moreland quotes Hull as saying that Darwinian
evolution shows that species (including us) lack natures and then as saying
that "no reference to biology can be made to support one's claims about
"human nature". Instead of noting that Hull contradicts himself and is
falsely connecting his own non-scientific ideas about natures with biology,
Moreland accepts the connection and claims that philosophical or
theological evidence for natures is evidence against natralistic evolution.

David Campbell