On Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:40:10 -0400 you wrote:
TG>I've been silent for about three weeks now and the pain is killing
me.
Welcome back! <g>
TG>I must say a word about the discussion on theistic evolutionist
>textbooks.
>First, I must ask why I don't hear the same questions about a theistic
>algebra book or a theistic chemistry book or a theistic physics book...
>>From an evolutionary creationist point of view there is no difference
>between biology and chemistry or math or physics or ...
Surely this depends on the subject matter? Would you say there would
be no difference between a theistic history of Israel and a
non-theistic one? The fact is that biological evolution was seen by
Darwin to have theistic implications:
"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct
objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately
created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent
of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and
slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions...Some of
those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural
selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the
above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural
selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in
having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at
least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma
of separate creations."(Darwin C., "The Descent of Man", Modern
Library, Random House, NY, p56).
In fact I believe that in an ideal world, there should be a theistic
algebra book! Why not present everything within the context of God's
marvellous design and providence? Are not the laws of mathematics an
expression of God's thoughts? Has it not been said that the universe
reveals the thoughts of a Pure Mathematician?
If "the heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps 19:1), should not a
Christian physics textbook make mention of it in introduction?
TG>Second, does this make EC indistinguishable from atheistic
>naturalism? In terms of the actual biological theorizing and
>empirical consequence, I'm willing to say maybe, in exactly the same
>way that I would say so for chemistry or physics or algebra. In
>terms of metaphysical foundations and metaphysical consequences:
>ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Agreed. Then why is this not made explicit in a Christian
science textbook?
TG>But, one could argue that
>these are of secondary importance in the science classroom and primarily
>belong in the philosophy of science or theology classroom.... I can't spend a
>lot of time talking about evolution/creation issues or philosophy of
>reductionism, etc. because I do need to teach about protein structure and
>the Kreb's cycle.
I agree that students are there to learn the technical aspects of
science. The metaphysical underpinnings of science (eg. design or
chance, etc) should be presented as a preliminary to science.
TG>I would welcome a EC textbook, but I don't think that it's that
>crucial. For starters, I don't think that most textbooks are
>explicitly antagonist toward EC the way they might be toward YEC (of
course, if I were to write a textbook, I'd be antagonistic toward YEC
>as well, although probably with a >little more sympathy for their
>motives).
Surely its not a question of being "antagonistic" to any particular
theory of creation? It's more a question of basic metaphysics, ie.
whether there was creation at all, eg:
"Deciding what is primary and what is secondary is often difficult,
but in the case of evolution, it was easy for me. The primary point
is not how long it took God to create, or whether he created things
abruptly or gradually, or whether the first chapters of Genesis are to
be interpreted literally or figuratively. These are all important
issues in their way, but they are secondary. The primary issue is
whether God created us at all." (Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting
`Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity Today, October 24,
1994, p26).
If textbooks of biology leave out creation and assume so-called
neutrality, then the assumption that students will make is that there
was no creation. (Mt 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me...")
TG>My judgment is that most
>textbooks aren't too concerned with an atheistic, materialistic worldview.
>Their concerned with the scientific matter at hand. Even someone as
>thoroughly committed to atheism as Peter Atkins writes his general chem
>text or physical chem text from an "a-metaphysical" point of view for the
>most part.
Is not "a-metaphysical" in fact a-theism? Once the default
metaphysical position has been established in science as non-theism,
does neutrality not forever lock theism into a minority shareholding?
TG>(In fact we use these books at Calvin. It makes for quite an
>interesting discussion when the students learn about his metaphysics and
>then how we can use such a book at a Christian college.) I am also
>familiar with Scott Foresman's Discovering Science curriculum (which I
>would recommend hightly); we have used all six grade school grades in
>homeschool our 5 kids, who seem to be turning into EC's although they get a
>good dose of YEC at church and now this past year from fellow 8th graders
>at the Christian school where our oldest attended for the first time. The
>teachers seemed to be old-earthers and had no problems with an evolutionary
>point of view as long as it was taught from a theistic orientation.
Yes. Isn't this the real point, as Johnson states above?
TG>The SF material presented evolutionary theory, paleontology, and
>old-earth geology so that I did not feel in the least that it was a
>threat to our Christian belief (and by the way, Russ, very
>conservative view of scripture).
TG>Dick Wright has done a nice job in Biology Through the Eyes of
>Faith, although I wouldn't exactly call his book a biology textbook.
>It is a supplemental text that deals with the issues that might
>concern Christians as they are discussed in a "normal" high school or
>college biology text. I personally wouldn't have many problems
>weaving Wright's material into a unified textbook, but to be honest,
>I don't think that the audience would be that great. Also, there are
>some very excellent textbooks out there so why reinvent the wheel.
Doesn't the title of Wright's book indicate that there is a difference
between a theistic view of Biology and a non-theistic view of same?
TG>Finally, and this is gets into the discussion that we have with
>students about the Atkins and other "non-Christian" texts. In our
>Reformed tradition we believe in "common grace"; that God has even
>blessed non-Christians with gifts to study his creation and discover
>truth. There's alot to say about that by way of qualification and I
>include below a brief essay that I've written on the topic (which I
>may have posted here before; I can't remember). But Christians have
>no corner on the truth in chemistry, algebra, physics, or biology.
>Thus, in as much as non-Christians are talking about God's world
>using the gifts that God has given them, we can learn much from them.
I don't think anyone is saying that in the nitty-gritty subject matter
of science there is any difference between Christians and
non-Christians. When a scientists becomes a Christian he does not
suddenly receieve a supernatural boost in knowledge that enables him
to win a Nobel prize! But he/she now knows the ultimate origin of all
things and in principle at least how they all relate together as part
of a *creation*.
TG>...much of the scientific enterprise can be
>conducted without reference to God. This has led some to suggest that
>science is religiously neutral or that science is category of description
>of the world that is largely independent from and complementary to a
>religious description. Thus, it is suggested that, as long as non
>Christian scientists do not step outside of the domain of science, i.e. as
>long as they only deal with properties, behavior, and the formative history
>of physical entities, that the fruit of their science can be incorporated
>into a Christian framework.
>
TG>Practically speaking, it is probably the case that this approach to
>science/faith issues works most of the time, however, it seems to me that
>this strikes at the heart of a Biblical and Reformed view of knowledge. In
>the work of Cornelius Van Til there is a sustained critique of this way of
>thinking about science. Van Til argues that the fundamental starting point
>for all knowledge is the knowledge of God and the proper creaturely
>response to that knowledge. Every fact of science is either interpreted
>rightly, acknowledging God as creator, or wrongly, denying God as creator.
Agreed. Then should not there be a recognition of this is in science
texts?
[...]
TG>There are three things to notice in this passage. First, the
Christian
>theist alone has true knowledge about science...
TG>The second thing to notice is that while Van Til denies that
>unbelievers have true knowledge...
TG>The final thing to notice is that Van Til appeals to common grace
>as the basis for this "knowledge after a fashion" that the unbeliever has.
Thanks for the summary of Van Til. I had his book "The Defense of the
Faith" but lost it after I moved. Many disagree with his
presuppositionalism, but that could be because of the way he expressed
himself. As a Calvinist, I tend to agree with him.
The question then is, how do we put Van Til's ideas into practice in
the context of Christian science textbooks? While granting that Gould
and Mayr may be better biologists than any Christian biologist, and
therefore *as science* their books are to be preferred, the point is
that in the big picture their books are wrong metaphysically, and the
humblest Creation-Science text has the better overall metaphysics (eg.
creation). It seems to me the answer is a preliminary metaphysics or
philosophy of science introduction to science, to be read in
conjunction with naturalistic science texts. For example. a
compendium of chapters written on areas of science written by
Christians who are experts in their field, eg.
A CHRISTIAN INTRODUCTION TO SCIENCE
1. Introduction - Philip Johnson
2. Physics - ?
3. Chemistry - Terry Gray
4. Astronomy - Hugh Ross
5. Biology - ?
etc.
This introduction should avoid any mention of lower level Christianity
and science issues, such as YEC vs Theistic Evolution, etc, or if that
is not possible, then at least there should be a fair, brief statement
of what each believes, while emphasising what they all agree on, ie.
that God created.
God bless.