At 09:28 PM 7/18/2007, George Murphy wrote:
>someone is going to have to send me [C. Hunter's] definition of
>"theological naturalism" before I can comment intelligently. ~ George
@ Re: Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius G. Hunter
Excerpt from book review below: "As Hunter ably points out, modern
defenders of Darwinism still operate under the assumption that the
doctrines of Natural Theology are THE Christian doctrines of Creation. "
~ Janice
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1587430118/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/104-0343672-7556739?ie=UTF8&n=283155#customerReviews
A Presuppositional Look at the Origins Debate, December 23, 2006
Review by Saint and Sinner
Cornelius Hunter does a job virtually no one else in the Origins
debate has done: reveal the theological influence that led to
naturalistic evolution.
After the Puritans took over England, so did their theology. They
taught the Biblical doctrines of Original Sin and the subjection of
the natural world to futility (Romans 3:9-18, 8:20). As a result of
their belief in man's fallen state (which included his belief-forming
faculties), they emphasized the Reformed belief that Scripture alone
was the guide to theology, anthropology, morals, philosophy, and a
general worldview.
When the Puritans were thrown out of England, there was a strong
reaction to their Biblical theology. The Anglicans rejected the
belief that man was so fallen that he could not acquire Divine Truth
apart from Scripture. Thus, they replaced the doctrine of "Scripture
alone" with a mixture of Scripture and "Enlightenment" philosophy.
This form of "Enlightenment" philosophy, which sought to give
credence to Christianity, was called "Natural Theology".
It sought to determine Divine Truth using unaided, autonomous human
Reason independent of Scripture. [Notice that I used the capital "R"
which refers to the Enlightenment philosophy rather than the lower
case "r" which refers to logical reasoning in general.]
However, just like the Continental form of Rationalism, "Natural
Theology" was shown to be personal, subjective, and emotive rather
than logically necessary.
The resulting theology was:
a.) the belief in a God that created everything to maximal perfection
*and remains so in its current state* [remember: the post-Puritan
Anglicans rejected the full effects of the Fall] and
b.) the belief that God wants the absolute best for his creatures
including man.
So, instead of the Puritan belief in the subjection of nature to
futility, Natural Theology stated that God sustained nature in beauty
and perfection and "wishes the happiness of His creatures" (Paley).
In place of the Westminster Catechism's statement that "man's chief
and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever"
(but fails to live up to it), Natural Theology gave David Hume and
other enemies of the Faith ammunition when it stated that "God exists
for the felicity of man".
After Newton, it added the belief that God's creation would be more
glorious if God set it in motion and never had to tinker with it afterward.
Thus, instead of the Reformed belief that God primarily created the
world with His eternal decree and story of Redemption in mind (along
with aesthetics), Natural Theology truncated God's purpose in
creation solely to aesthetic reasons.
Lastly, it also entailed non-Biblical, philosophical speculations
like the "fixity of species".
These are the beliefs in which Charles Darwin grew-up and was taught
to believe were THE doctrines of Creation.
However, when his experiences out in the wild easily dispelled the
notions of his post-Puritan, Victorian era, idealistic Natural
Theology, he rejected the Christian doctrine of Creation altogether.
He saw that there was much suffering in nature such as parasitism,
disease, and, especially, death. He saw that contrary to Linnaeus'
belief in the "fixity of species", organisms changed with their
environment. So idealistic were his views of nature that he even came
to doubt creation because of all the wasted reproductive seed such as
pollen! With all this combined, Darwin argued that God had nothing to
do with the universe after He created it. This was because (according
to Darwin's teddy-bear conception of God) God would not allow his
created organisms to suffer if He indeed had created them. So,
instead of ditching Natural Theology for the Reformed Theology of
Original Sin and the subjection of nature to futility, Darwin opted for Deism.
As Hunter ably points out, modern defenders of Darwinism still
operate under the assumption that the doctrines of Natural Theology
are THE Christian doctrines of Creation.
Many of them accept evolution simply because they believe that the
doctrine of Creation (as made up by Natural Theology) is contrary to
what nature is actually like. Thus, no matter how much evidence is
piled up against neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and common
descent, the problem of natural evil and other "[my made up, Natural
Theology version of] God wouldn't have done it that way" style
arguments are always the weights that tip the scales back in favor of
naturalism.
For example, take homology and the common genetic code. The
naturalistic solution is to say that creatures had a common ancestor.
The creationist solution is to say that they had a common designer.
Now, on the face of it, one cannot argue for either solution without
begging the question (i.e. circular reasoning). However, in order to
tip the scales, the Darwinists would argue that the common designer
hypothesis can't be true since (according to their idealistic Natural
Theology view of God) God would never repeat a pattern but rather
make everything different and beautiful. Of course, the argument: a.)
is personal, subjective, and emotive, b.) is an argument against a
rival theory rather than for the proposed theory [making it a
"god-of-the-gaps" (or shall I say "chance-of-the-gaps") argument],
and c.) assumes that God's sole purpose in Creation was aesthetic.
I would now like to respond to a few negative reviews below. One
(i.e. Mark E. Miller) stated that Hunter's thesis was all wrong: "The
numerous quotes he gives in the book of metaphysical musings by
evolutionists, are, in the main, reflective of attempts to reconcile
their own metaphysical views with the facts their investigations have
uncovered, and are *not* the motivating principle behind their
conclusions - which are based solidly on those facts."
However, it is indeed the other way around: major evolutionists
(including Darwin himself) eliminated Creationism altogether because
of the problem of evil and other "[my made up, Natural Theology
version of] God wouldn't have done it that way" style arguments. For
instance, during the Peter Ward (Darwinist) vs. Stephen Meyer (I.D.)
debate, one of Ward's major arguments against I.D. was that there
were millions and millions of extinct species, and of course, he
asked: if there was a God who created these creatures, why didn't he
take care of them? [The answer, of course, is that God subjected
nature to futility because of man's sin, but you'd never know that
with a Natural Theology mindset.] In my personal experience with
Darwinists, I have found that they will often use theodicy and other
old, Natural Theology arguments against Creation as their reason for
believing in Darwinian evolution. One example was when an atheist
argued that, if God really had created us, then he would have given
us better defense mechanisms such as wings to quickly fly away. This,
he argued, is proof that man was not created, but rather, he evolved
through a blind, natural process of random mutation and natural
selection. [Of course, the atheist was assuming that God originally
intended man to be out in the wild amongst predators instead of in a
secure enclosed garden (which he was then expelled from when he fell
into sin).]
Whenever you back a Darwinist into a corner by refuting his mainstay
arguments for NDET or common descent, he will always resort to the
problem of evil and other "[my made up, Natural Theology version of]
God wouldn't have done it that way" style arguments. At bottom, after
you remove the thin scientific wrapping, the main reason for
believing in evolution (whether consciously or unconsciously) is
theodicy with an old, Victorian era, un-Biblical view of God.
Another criticism of this book (found below) is that it fails to
provide an answer to the "Why would God create 15 different species
of elephant? He sure must have been busy!" style argument by Kenneth
Miller. Of course, if the reviewer had read the book more closely or
actually read *modern* Creationist literature, he would know that NO
MODERN CREATIONIST BELIEVES IN THE FIXITY OF SPECIES!!! In fact, the
newest Creationist movement, called Baraminology, states that many
species have evolved from an ancestor within their "kind". So, a
modern Creationist would say that those 15 species of elephant
micro-evolved as they migrated to different climates of the earth
(through a process that was pre-programmed into their genes) from a
common elephant ancestor that God had created.
The last criticism that I would like to deal with comes from the
review by Ken W. Daniels below: "Whatever else might be supposed
about God's nature, it is generally agreed that, if He exists, He is
not deceptive. This is why many creationists are now abandoning the
young-earth creationists' "appearance of age" theory. Yet Hunter is
disturbed when evolutionists provide evidence for evolution and
assert that "God would not have done it that way." Perhaps He did do
it that way, but at the risk of introducing the strong appearance of
evolution."
First of all, this is a common straw-man version of the "appearance
of age" argument. No Creationist that I know of believes that God
created the world with an appearance of age *for the purpose of*
making it look old. Rather, God created it that way for utilitarian
purposes. For example, He intended a fully-formed tree to be used as
a dwelling place for animals or firewood for humans rather than to be
used as a clock by scientists many years later. Second, Ken's
argument for common ancestry from pseudogenes is constantly being
debunked with new research. Scientists are finding out that
pseudogenes do, in fact, have a function, and they also have an
insertion bias (which dispels the need for a common ancestry
conclusion). Like the list of vestigial organs, the arguments for
NDET and common descent grow smaller with each new scientific discovery.
I highly recommend Cornelius Hunter's book, Darwin's God. It is a
great look at the metaphysical presuppositions of common Darwinian arguments.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 19 11:48:29 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 19 2007 - 11:48:30 EDT