On Wed, 26 Jul 1995 08:36:30 -0500 you wrote:
>Stephen wrote
SJ>If current day Darwinism is wrong (ie. does not explain the data),
then
>"Christians" have every right to criticise it.
>
BH>(Why are you putting "Christians" in quotation marks?)
It was Glenn's term, not mine.
BH>Christians
>certainly have every right, and a duty to criticize Darwinism. If
>Darwinists claim that evolution eliminates the need for a creator, we have
>not only a right, but an obligation to point out that the individual is
>making unsupported metaphysical statements -- he has stepped out of science
>and whatever authority he may have as a scientist gives him no credibility
>in this arena.
Agreed.
BH>If Darwinists draw unwarranted scientific conclusions,
>Christians conversant with the science involved have not only the right,
>but the obligation as honest Christians and honest scientists to challenge
>them. However, they had better respect a response from the party they
>challenge, and had better be prepared to respond to the response in an
>intelligent fashion.
Agreed. Is there any suggestion that those of us who criticise
Darwinism
are less than honest? :-)
SJ>And as Phil Johnson pointed out on the Reflector some time ago, if
>Darwinist mechanisms are inadequate, they should come clean and admit
>it:
>SJ>PJ>when the scientific authorities acknowledge in their textbooks
>that the Darwinian (mutation, cumulative selection) mechanism cannot
do the job, and admit frankly that something really new is needed, I
will be impressed with this sort of private disclaimer. But they
continue to promote the old line as "fact."
BH>It seems to me that Phil is requiring a kind of certainty from
science that
>is unrealistic in any human enterprise. The equivalent in sports might be
>to deny the World Series championship to the winning team if its manager
>cannot explain all the physics of every home run hit during the season. I
>am 100% with Phil when he challenges the metaphysics of people like Richard
>Dawkins and Carl Sagan, or when he challenges extravagant claims (your
>mileage may vary :-)) of solved problems. Honest scientists always attach
>a certain amount of tentativity to their pronouncements, and frankly a
>number of evolutionists don't. But let's not throw out the entire
>enterprise because a few extravagant claims are made. Let's point out that
>the claims are extravagant in a scientifically credible way and go on doing
>sound science.
No one is throwing out science. The question is whether evolution (ie.
macro-
evolution) *is* science.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Perth | / Oz \ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Australia | -> *_,--\_/ | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
------------------------- v ------------------------------------