On Fri, 7 Jul 1995 11:48:40 -0400 you wrote:
BH>abstract: definition of evolution and its relation to *N*aturalism
>
BH>I think the insistence by practically all evolutionists that
>evolution must be a blind process with no purpose etc. etc. is the
>part which comes closest to *N*aturalism. Remember Gould's "...
>paths that a sensible God would never tread ...", which, IMHO, is a
>slam against theistic evolutionists every bit as much as it is
>against creationists.
I agree. This is Phil Johnson's point. Naturalistic evolutionists will
only allow a God who is at best unnecessary and at worst non-existent:
"Many Christian college and seminary professors have understandably
wanted to win the respect of their peers in the secular academic
world, and so they have worked mightily to reconcile the naturalistic
understanding of knowledge with Christian faith. Intelligent
naturalists do not necessarily disapprove of this effort, provided it
is dear who is in charge. What they do insist upon is that subjective
religious belief must always conform itself to objective scientific
knowledge, never the other way around. Thus, if a Christian college
professor teaches "evolution" exactly as Carl Sagan or Stephen Jay
Gould would teach it, he may append a theistic interpretation that
characterizes the process as God's way of creating. This
interpretation will earn him no great credit from naturalists, but
they will be tolerant so long as it is clear that the theism in
"theistic evolution" refers to a personal reflection upon a process
that is objectively explainable on a naturalistic basis. If a
professor were to give his theism some scientific content-for example,
by suggesting that pre-existing intelligence may be required to make
living organisms from nonliving chemicals-he would forfeit instantly
his standing in the scientific community and the secular academic
world. Like Dean Kenyon, he would be accused of injecting subjective
"religion" into the objective realm of science." (Phillip E. Johnson,
"Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity Today,
October 24, 1994, pp24-25).
God bless.
Stephen