That is complete nonsense. How do people write such trash. they need to learn some history of science. It is interesting that Darwin's main science teachers the Revs J Henlsow and Adam Sedgwick did not believe this so-called natural theology.
Michael
@ Re: Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by Cornelius GO. 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 14:46:33 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 19 2007 - 14:46:41 EDT