This from Jim Bell:
>Glenn writes:
>
><< Then there is my view
>which says human history is much much older and the flood was 5.5 million
>years ago.
>Which option do you choose?>>
JB
>The option left out, which is a better interpretation of the data, one which
>is not colored by an inner motive to shoot down a particular fundamentalist
>view. One, in other words, without bias.
>
>There is no naturalistic explanation for the sudden leap in modern man, even
>if dated earlier than some believe. Glenn's flaw is in assuming naturalistic
>common ancestry. But the data is not suggestive of this, absent bias.
and (jumping around), this from JB,
>Which leaves us an option Glenn fails to consider, and one Goodman proposes:
>the non-naturalistic explanation [Goodman prefers the term "interventionism"].
>Why does Glenn exclude this option? Not because the data compels him, but
>because his prevailing bias is Naturalism.
In support of his contention of bias in naturalism, Jim cites quotes from
Wallace that argue against Darwin's natural selection explanation for human
evolution,
JB
In The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin made it clear that he
>saw the forces of evolution as solely responsible for mans physical appearance
>and mental nature, including the human powers of memory, imagination, and
>reason. Wallace, on the other hand argued, [that natural selection] could
>not provide an entire species with a brain so vastly disproportionate to its
>requirements, as man's mental capacities exceeded those needed for survival."
>Wallace suggest, "that a superior intelligence had guided the development of
>man...and for a special purpose, just as man guides the development of many
>animal and vegetable forms." [Id.]
This, of course, reflects Wallace's bias for supernatural explanations.
The rest of Jim's post added more of Wallace's thoughts along this vein.
However, they offer no more hard evidence for supernatural creation of
humans than Darwin offered for natural selection. Therefore, I contend that
they both had their favorite world-views (or biases, if you prefer), and to
raise Wallace's opinion over Darwin's as an argument against bias is misleading.
Some time ago, the bias issue was raised in the context of whether one had a
limited vs unlimited view of reality. Phil Johnson and Jim Bell held that
"methodological naturalism" placed limits on reality, while "theistic
realism" did not (of course, a given side of a debate is greatly aided if
that side is allowed to determine the labels for the different positions).
Granted, a philosophical naturalist (my preferred label) who disavows the
possibility of a creator, places a priori limits on the reality she will
accept. Yet, a "theistic realist" who favors supernatural explanation and
disavows natural explanations, similarly limits the reality that he
considers legitimate. Those who, on the basis of their faith, automatically
reject any possibility that evolution may have some basis in truth, are not
realists.
I don't disagree that philosophical naturalism and its attendant baggage is
problematic, but unfortunately, "theistic realists" too often readily jump
to a God-of-the-gaps argument when naturalistic explanations are not
immediately forthcoming. They do not hold the intellectual high ground of
unbias.
Cheers,
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________