Thanks for re-posting this quote:
> "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).
Like most people on this discussion group, I've personally come to know my
share of Christian and non-Christian scientists and professors. Based on
my experience, I would say that Phil's characterization, in the second
through sixth sentences, of non-Christian attitudes towards theism is
pretty accurate in most cases, albeit insufficiently charitable in a
notable minority of cases.
However, I think that Johnson's characterization, in the first sentence,
of Christian faculty attitudes is way off the mark! None of us can claim
purity of motives, but frankly, Johnson is constructing and tearing down
straw men. Would it not be equally fair to say, "Many Christian college
and seminary professors have understandably wanted to win the respect of
their peers in the Christian academic world, and so they have worked
mightily to re-cast traditional Christian theology as divergent as
possible from the views of non-Christians in their field, rather than
honestly and carefully evaluating the work for the true contributions it
contains"? (To answer my own question: I've seen it done on occasion,
but I would not characterize their primary motivation for doing so as
"wanting to win respect.")
All of the Christian scholars that it has been my privilege to know
personally are so motivated by the joy of honestly using their God-given
gifts to understand the truth about God's creation and revelation, and to
communicate their insights to others, that other motives (such as wanting
to "win respect") pale into insignificance by comparison.
I wish I could put this more politely, but it looked to me like Johnson
strayed perilously close to demonizing his opponents by ascribing them
ignoble motives -- a common tactic in political debate, and a PET PEEVE of
mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Your denial of my victimhood |
is lowering my self-esteem!" | Loren Haarsma
--Calvin (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu