>I am on good terms with Paul Nelson but we differ deeply. I think the
>saddest statement in their part was their characterization of theistic
>evolutionists.
Glenn quotes a paragraph from page 46,
"Theistic evolution is not the result of some stupidity, but a creative
failure. Such people, for whatever reason, cannot see beyond the bounds of
their training or their own philosophic and theological commitments to
seriously consider other possibilities."
Before this paragraph, Paul says, of TEs, "Many are well-trained,
competent scientists. They are rarely leaders of mainstream science,
but they are allowed an existence within their disciplines." This
comment ("allowed an existence"?) seems unnecessary and demeaning.
On the other hand, in the paragraph following Glenn's quote, Paul/JM
explains what he means by a lack of "creative" freedom: "Christians who
are theistic evolutionists are in a cruel bind. Their theology demands
a God who acts in space and time. They are captured, however, by a
methodological naturalism in science that will not allow them to
scientifically consider positive evidence for a creator. They are so
fearful of being wrong about proclaiming God's activity in the natural
world that they have decided that his activity is invisible to human
science. As we shall see, this limitation of science impedes the
ability of theistic evolutionists to consider all the possibilities."
Paul/JM are talking about the restricting of scientific freedom by
a theology such as Van Till's "functional integrity" or "fully gifted
creation" model. With a theology that God DID use miracles in human
"salvation history" but DID NOT use miracles in the formative history
of nature, the possible range of scientific conclusions is restricted,
so the freedom of a scientist is restricted.
>Which of course totally ignores people like me, Denis Lamoureaux and
>others, who were once fully committed YECs but found the distortions and
>ignoring of the data to be too much to stomach. We once saw 'beyond the
>bounds of our training,'
I have great respect for anyone who says "I once thought (and said)
this, but now I see that I was wrong." This takes humility and courage,
and shows the person is capable of these virtues. But it does not
therefore guarantee that this person will forever be free of "external
influences" on their science. (none of us is totally free of influences)
And this is the point of Paul/JMR, that Methodological Naturalism (MN)
can exert a powerful restrictive influence on one's science, and it takes
some "creative freedom" to overcome this influence. It is very possible
to reject MN and still affirm TE, but MN does exert an influence toward
the acceptance of TE. And a much stronger influence is exerted by a
theology of Functional Integrity, which says what God CANNOT have done.
Similarly, an assumption that God MUST have acted in miracuoous ways
exerts an influence away from TE, toward ID. A "cannot" and a "must"
are both restrictive.
George Murphy says,
>Let's be blunt: The root of such criticisms of theistic evolution is
>theological ignorance.
Really? It seems that what Paul/JMR (and I) say about the possibility
of science being restricted by Methodological Naturalism (or Functional
Integrity) has some basis other than theological ignorance. It seems to
be straightforward logic: If there are any restrictions on what science
"cannot conclude" (or what God "cannot do"), the scientific freedom of a
scientist will be diminished. { Perhaps we can critique other parts of
what Paul/JMR have said about the advantages of YEC over OEC or TE, but
this question -- whether a "cannot" or a "must" is justified -- is a
separate issue; it isn't directly relevant when we are asking whether a
"cannot" or a "must" will exert an influence that tends to restrict
scientific freedom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>And given the admission John Mark and Paul make about the evidence making
>YEC untenable, I wonder how they can remain as yecs other than by wishing
>and hoping.
Yes, I think "wishing and hoping" IS their conclusion. They claim that
YEC science (as-is) is "worthy of PURSUIT" but "not worthy of ACCEPTANCE".
Craig