Your suggestion is, in principle, a good one. However, to make it good in
practice as well you will have to do a far better job than Phil Johnson in
distinguishing Naturalistic metaphysics from natural science and from the
particulars of specific scientific theories.
For more discussion on the importance of this distinction see my review
essay, "Special Creationism in Designer Clothing" in the the June '95 issue
of _Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith_, especially pp. 127-28 on
the difference between "naturalistic (narrow)" and "Naturalistic (broad)." As
he ordinarily states it, Phil's case against the credibility of evolutionary
continuity rests on the ambiguity created by overlooking this distinction.
Cordially,
Howard J. Van Till
Professor of Physics
Calvin College
>Date: 25 Sep 95 00:37:07 EDT
>From: Joseph Carson <73530.2350@compuserve.com>
>To: ASA reflector <asa@Calvin.EDU>
>Subject: Theist Manifesto?
>
>I've recently read Phil Johnson's new book, REASON IN THE BALANCE, and I
>want to work on drafting a "theist manifesto" to be adopted by the American
>Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the National Society of
>Professional Engineers (NSPE). The intention is to explictly identified the
>metaphysics of scientific naturalism as precisely that and to work to end
>their exclusionary position of dominance in American intellectual thought.
>
>I think engineers may be better positioned to do this than scientists, for
>reasons described in Phil's book - by and large we're inured from "peer
>pressure" and since technical societies are voluntary and independent of
>employers, at least in theory, they could provide a good forum for arguments
>that are placed "off the table" in many other forums by court decisions.
>
>This idea and the mechanisms to implement are still very formulative, but I
>think it's going to be great fun and excitement!
>
>I want ASA and Promise Keepers to be the "lead institutions" - I think the
>resulting publicity will generate some intense media interest, and many
>opportunities for those involved to provide a Christian witness to
>interested parties.
>
>What do you say? We're always to be ready to give an answer for the hope
>within us (I Peter 3:15), and I just don't want to pay dues to
>professional societies that now stand opposed to the metaphysics of my hope.
>Do I insist that they abandon naturalism and embrace theism - no, I just
>want the exclusionary position that naturalism now holds to be recognized
>and corrected. Why should I be considered "deluded" by my profession
>because
>I believe the grand metaphysical story of science is based on some very
>dubious assumptions and contrary to much of the empirical evidence?
>
>Looking forward to you consideration and suggestions,
>
>Joe Carson 73530.2350@compuserve.com
>
>
>