Perhaps, part of the problem lies in our use of 'theistic' to describe
scientific explanations!
Jack Haas
]
----- Original Message -----
From: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: <RDehaan237@aol.com>
Cc: <hvantill@novagate.com>; <jhofmann@exchange.fullerton.edu>;
<dj_mic20@yahoo.com>; <bert@massie-labs.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Question
> RDehaan237@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 3/28/01 9:00:11 AM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
> >
> > << Certainly, but my point wasn't that statements such as those of
Simpson
> > should be ignored.
> > It is relevant to cite such statements as evidence of the way some
scientists
> > &
> > philosophers have tried to use evolution to further their own
anti-religious
> > agenda. But it's quite another matter to cite Simpson, Huxley, Dawkins,
&c
> > as if
> > their statements carried some theological weight. >>
> >
> > George,
> >
> > The fact that statements by Simpson and others of like ilk don't carry
any
> > theological weight is beside the point. The point is that they carry
> > sociological and cultural weight, if you will. The intellectual opinion
> > leaders of Western society have largely been won over to the
anti-religious
> > agenda of "some scientists & philosophers" , especially in academia,
partly
> > as a result of statements made by Simpson, et. al. Do you not agree
that
> > evolution has become the creation myth of modern society, as Michael
Denton
> > called it? Is it not the linch-pin of metaphysical naturalism?
> >
> > As I see it, you, and perhaps others in the theistic evolutionary camp,
fail
> > to acknowledge and come to grips with some of the baneful side effects
> > Darwinian evolution has had on Western culture, from the historic
> > Judeo-Christian perspective, and prefer to view evolution
idealistically, as
> > a purely scientific theory, as if it has no cultural impact. I would
like
> > to read more of what you think in that regard.
>
> Bob -
> Whether or not something is "beside the point" depends on what the
point is!
> What I have said is that statements of Simpson _et al_ should not be
cited in
> theological discussions of the value of "theistic evolution." Citing them
as
> examples of the way in which evolution has been used by opponents of
Christianity
> is certainly relevant. But to accept the statements as valid inferences
from
> scientific observations and theories about evolution, and thus conclude
that
> evolution must be rejected because it's fundamentally incompatible with
> Christianity is simply wrong. Most Christians who accept such arguments
have
> made no serious attempt to find out what "theistic evolution" might mean &
in
> fact often display just plain incompetence in their attempts to discuss
theology.
>
> For centuries some people have drawn anti-Christian conclusions
from all
> sorts of scientific developments - heliocentrism, Newtonian mechanics, the
germ
> theory of disease, &c, quantum theory, &c. Are we therefore to reject
"theistic
> heliocentrism" &c?
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 30 2001 - 11:12:55 EST