On Sat, 24 Jun 1995 11:58:28 -0400 you wrote:
TG>You pointed out that Phil Johnson says the following:
>
SJ>"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).
>
TG>He makes this point often and it is also found in DOT, however,
>when it comes to engaging Christians who are EC's (TE's if you
>prefer), he accuses us (like you have done), accepting uncritically
>the results of evolutionary science with its supporting naturalistic
>worldview.
I cannot answer for Phil, and I missed your debate (worse luck-are
these debates available, eg. on the WWW server?). But perhaps my
position is not as matured as his. I said at the very outset that I
was open to theistic evolution and I still am, although I believe
progressive creation is a more Biblical model.
In fact Phil seems to say much the same thing:
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God
exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who
might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process
instead." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993,
Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p14).
Perhaps Phil is testing for (as I am too) is a truly held Biblical
theistic position or just a baptised naturalism. It seems to me he is
really zeroing in on the philosophy of naturalism, rather than
biology.
TG>Then he goes on to
>criticize evolutionary biology as if to say that if you undo the
>evolutionary theory then you undo the naturalistic philosophy behind it.
What I agree with Phil (or at least Carl F.H. Henry), is that
"evolution" is not really a Biblical term. It is borrowed from Greek
pantheism. I believe that Progressive Creationism is a more Biblical
term.
Evolution has been an absolute disaster for Christianity. The nearest
example night be the cult of Baal in the OT. I realise there is
evolution the philosophy and evolution the scientific theory, but
the very name implies the philosophy. IMHO Christians should not use
it at all.
TG>It seems to me that if Johnson really means what he says about
>whether God created us at all being the primary issue, then he ought
>to have NO fight with TE's or EC's.
Well it also depends on how meaningfully the word "create" is used.
If it means God by a series of external creative acts, bringing about
the physical and living world, then fine. But if it means God sets up
a system like a machine (refer Glenn's wave-maker) and it does all the
creating, then I don't think this really fits the Biblical picture.
TG>However, this is not the case, when I first joined the reflector
>and defended my position, he called it vacuous and not even wrong!
He is after all a former prosecutor! <g>
TG>He final response to my comments on his post about theistic
>realists seems to suggest that he is now more willing to grant me
>legitimacy, but my sense is that he thinks that I have been indoctrinated
>by a scientific community dominated by naturalistic rather than theistic
>thinking and thus I'm not really taking my theism seriously.
Indeed he says this:
"Ironically, while my critique of Darwinism and scientific naturalism
has gained a hearing in secular academic debates, it has met with
surprising resistance from theistic evolutionists in the Christian
academic world. That many Christian college and seminary professors
are ardent defenders of Darwinism may seem astonishing, but it is
true. There are many reasons for this, including the powerful
indoctrination aspiring professors receive in graduate schools."
(Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin",
Christianity Today, October 24, 1994, p26)
It does seem to me as a non-scientist, that TE's spend a lot of time
attacking the views of their fellow theists and not much time
critiquing Darwinism. That is what Phil complains about. DOT received
more criticism from TE than from the naturalists!
TG>Also, I'd like to say that Darwin's goal in proposing his theory
>has very little to do with its correctness or incorrectness.
>Frankly, I think that Darwin's theology is garbage. It was 19th
>century Anglican liberalism with little connection to Biblical
>theology.
Agreed.
TG>BTW and for the record. I'm really a biologist. Both my B.S. and
>Ph.D. are in molecular biology in biology departments. I'm in
>chemistry at Calvin as a biochemist (although I do teach freshman
>level chemistry).
Thanks. I suspected it. <g>
I must confess that Denis' ape-human teeth evidence and your Vitamin C
in primates evidence has given me much to think about. I would like
more evidence from you about that. Exactly which primates do and do
not have the vitamin C deficiency.
I would also like to know where you think the major weaknesses are in
the current Darwinian theory of evolution. For example, do you really
believe that a Blind Watchmaker process could craft an eye? I'm not
saying could it be done on paper (even that would be interesting to
see). Could it *really* be done in flesh and blood?
Regards.
Stephen