Agreed. As manager of geophysics for my company, I have had mostly
atheists or very non religious people for my bosses. They all wanted me as
manager because I get things done. They were aware of my beliefs. I often
discussed religious things with my favorite atheist boss. He didn't care
what my beliefs were. He thought I was wrong, and muddle headed about
religion, but his desire to have me as a manager was not merely allowing me
to exist. He asked for me. What Nelson and Reynold's statement shows is
that they really don't know the views of the scientists, especially those
in industry.
> 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.
I find this laughable. The anthropic principle has been advocated both by
christians in science as well as those of a non-religious nature. I think
Nelson and Reynolds can't seem to accept the fact that the world is not as
hostile to different ideas as they seem to think it is.
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."
I am a TE and I am not fearful of proclaiming God's activity, even to my
atheist bosses. And once again, the anthropic principle is not invisible
to human science. Indeed, whole books have been written on it. (BArrow and
Tipler, The Anthropic Principle.) Tipler is not what you would call
christian in the orthodox sense.
And I find it utterly laughable to claim that theistic evolutionists can't
consider all the possiblities. I WAS A YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST. I
CONSIDERED THEIR POSITION. They can't make that claim about this Theistic
Evoltuionist. In fact, I embraced their position until I could no longer
stomach the constant evasions of data that I was forced to engage in. And
given their admission that their position does not have scientific support,
I see that they are in the same predicament I found myself in as a
YEC--knowing that YEC was contradicted by the data.
>
> 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.
Lots of TEs beleive that God miraculously created the universe. I do. I am
not opposed to miracles. I believe that God made a snake talk. They are
painting with a very broad brush.
As to restricting freedom scientists are not restricted by methodological
naturalism, the data is what makes the restrictions. If each species was
its own kingdom, then scientists would have no choice but to reject
evolution. The problem is that the data doesn't support what Paul and John
Mark want.
>
>>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.
I don't think they have overcome anything. If they can overcome the evil
force of methodological naturalism, then I presume that they have been able
to make successful predictions from their science. Name one thing that
theistic science, as defined by the ID group, has discovered or predicted?
I can't think of a single thing. They complain all the time that their
freedom is restricted, but they are perfectly free to make predictions from
their point of view and then have those predictions verified. But they
rarely make predictions and I know of none that have been successful. Name
the article in which the predition was made?
And a much stronger influence is exerted by a
>theology of Functional Integrity, which says what God CANNOT have done.
It seems to me that it is the YECs who are saying that God can't create via
evolution. I believe God could create instantaneously, but I don't believe
He did. This claim ignores the following:
"The God of the Bible is a God of wisdom and power and love, and such a God
could never be guilty of such an incredibly inefficient and cruel scheme of
development as evolution." ~ Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern
Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 328
Here is a clear statement that God couldn't create via evolution. As a TE
I believe God could create as the YECs want, but He didn't.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution