SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/1/00 10:14:00 AM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
> writes:
> [Below is my description of what I saw as PJ's unwillingness to acknowledge
> providence. Formatting is messed up because the e-mail was sent in HTML
> which becomes illegible by the time it passes trhough the reflector and then
> AOL.]
> > >"While I believe the evidence does not support the theory of evolution,
> > >and while it has been abused as a tool by those pushing an atheist
> > >agenda, the Christian faith does not suffer if it turns out that
> > >evolution is true. God can create however He chooses, and is not
> > >diminished if His work in creation was through 'natural' processes."
> > The fact that Johnson would not agree to such a statement, which evensome
> ID
> > proponents on this list thought was agreeable, seems to confirm theclaim
> > that he is unwilling to acknowledge God's ability to do his creativework
> via
> > his sovereignty over nature.
> [End of my statement]
> > I wrote Phil a note, asking him
> > about his position on the doctrine of providence and his reasons for
> refusing
> > to endorse the above quotation. Here is whathe wrote back:
> > "My views are explained in by writings, especially Reason in theBalance (
> > the Appendix is particularly important) and The Wedge ofTruth. Among
> > my views are these: (1) God can and does act bywhatever means He chooses,
> > including superintendence of natural processes; and (2) I do not allow
> other
> > persons, especially persons who think in naturalistic categories, to
> > put their own (vague) words in my mouth - e.g., "if evolution" (
> > undefined) "turns out to be true" (as determined by reasoning based upon
> > methodological naturalism?). The question is not what God can do but what
> the
> > neo-Darwinian mechanism can do, when its creative power has to be
> > demonstrated by experiment rather than deduced from naturalistic
> assumptions.&
> > nbsp; I do not cooperate with attempts to evade that question."
> > I think that pretty much settles the question.
>
> I think that pretty much evades the question, as Johnson continues to avoid
> explaining his theology of God's action in nature. He gives lip service to
> God being able to work through natural processes. The question is, if
> Johnson's evaluation of the evidence is incorrect and natural evolutionary
> mechanisms really do explain (at a physical level; I'm not talking about
> ultimate causation) the development of life (I fail to see what is "vague"
> about such a statement), does that exclude God from being the Creator.
> If so, then Johnson, if he is consistent, would also have to say that God is
> not the creator of stars and mountains, since we have well-verified
> explanations for their formation in terms of "naturalistic" mechanisms that
> make no reference to God.
> If not, then one may argue the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution
> as a scientific question, but it should have no theological impact. In which
> case Johnson's arguments are not defense of the faith, but just another
> argument about whether or not scientific consensus is correct or not, much
> like his writings on HIV and AIDS.
>
> Maybe we could try him on another question:
> >From a theological standpoint, are explanations of the development of life in
> terms of "natural" mechanisms incompatible with Christianity? If so, are the
> "natural" explanations of the formation of mountains in terms of plate
> tectonics also incompatible with Christianity?
>
> I think all the arguments about the scientific evidence are a waste of time
> until these fundamental philosophical issues about how God is allowed to act
> in the world, and about what natural explanations "mean" metaphysically, are
> thought through. Richard Dawkins thinks natural explanations like evolution
> "mean" that God is not there. I disagree, based on what the Bible says about
> God's sovereignty over nature. Phil Johnson *appears* to agree with Dawkins
> on this fundamental view; at least he keeps dodging opportunities to disagree
> with Dawkins' view of what evolution means. Once one agrees with Dawkins
> there, one has sold out to semi-deism and must then argue against the science
> as though the truth of the faith were at stake.
You are quite right & Johnson's statement:
"The question is not what God can do but what the neo-Darwinian mechanism can
do, when its creative power has to be demonstrated by experiment rather than
deduced from naturalistic assumptions."
gets it completely wrong. _If_ God could create through a neo-Darwinian mechanism then
the question of whether or not that mechanism is correct is of purely scientific
interest & all the rhetoric about the baneful effects neo-Darwinism in itself would
become pointless. It would then be a matter of pointing out that Dawkins, Provine et al
draw incorrect inferences from the theory, whether or not it is correct.
Secondly, PJ's apparent belief that one can do science with "experiment" apart
from "assumptions" suggest that his understanding of the way science works is pretty
much on a level with his understanding of theology.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 15:49:11 EDT