>Brian
>
>On Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:28:25 -0400 you wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>BH>Anyway, I guess I do tend to agree with this. In fact, it seems to
>>me that TE and PC are more closely related than TE and DE, i.e. the
>>difference between TE and PC seems to be a disagreement over the
>>interference mechanism :).
>
>If there is "interference" then I would claim that TE *is* PC. IMHO,
>TE is inconsistent because most TE's will grant some direct
>intervention by God, eg. origin of life, creation of man. This makes
>it indistinguishable from a weak PC.
>
One of the motivations for my posts on this was to try to find some
common ground between the various positions held by Christians on this
most controversial and divisive issue. In this sense, I think the current
thread is very encouraging. It seems clear to me that many TE's actually
agree with many PC's on some key points. This being the case, it really
doesn't matter to me much what one wants to call oneself. Evolution doesn't
have to carry negative connotations. One could define the notorious
"fact of evolution" as merely the empirical observation of biological
change over time. PC and TE would then be two ways of explaining this
observation. If they agree on some points, so much the better, IMHO.
[...]
>BH>Now, Stephen will likely say that people who thought they were TE's
>>are really PC's. In fact, the opposite is true, Stephen is really a
>>TE and doesn't yet realize it ;-).
>
>Indeed I have said this jokingly, so perhaps I have given the wrong
>impression. I apologise.
My statement was intended as a joke. I realized that you felt rather
strongly about this so perhaps I should have held my tongue :-).
I suppose that I should do now what I should've done then and just
keep quiet, but I'm afraid that I disagree very strongly with some
of what you say and feel that I must say something. Here goes ..... :-)
>To clarify, I reject the "E", in "TE", ie.
>"Evolution" *totally*. I don't want to offend my Christian brothers
>who acept TE, but I regard the Darwinist theory of macro-evolution as
>a (if not *the*) "strong delusion" (2Th 2:11), and part of the
>dragon's (Satan's) "torrent" directed at the woman (the Church) (Rev
>12:15).
>
>I base this judgment on Darwinism's fruits (Mt 7:16). Simply,
>Darwin's General Theory of Macroevolution has been one of the
>greatest disasters that have ever befallen the Christian Church.
>Even non-believers like Denton can see this:
>
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize
them. ...
-- Matthew 7:15-16a [NIV]
I think you should be very careful in using this passage to justify your
opposition to evolution. First of all, Jesus is telling us to recognize
people (not scientific theories) by their fruit. Secondly, he is talking
about a specific type of person, false prophets coming to us in sheep's
clothing. I would take this as delusion and confusion coming from within
the church, or in any event from individuals who claim to be in the church.
Thus, it seems to me that we can't even use this verse to justify judging
professed atheists like Sagan, Dawkins or Dennett by their fruits. I guess
this makes sense. Their professed atheism renders more subtle methods of
detection such as fruit recognition unnecessary.
I feel rather strongly that the Church's main struggle comes from within
and further that well meaning Christians are doing much more harm to
the cause of Christ than atheists such as Dawkins or Dennett could ever
hope for.
Secondly, I think it is extremely important to keep a distinction between
the science of evolution and the abuses of this science promulgated by
certain individuals. A common example of such abuse is to maintain on
the one hand that the methods of science cannot address purpose or meaning
and then turn around and say that the methods of science show that their is
no purpose or meaning.
Isn't it possible that evolution is true while the metaphysical interpretations
of evolution are false? I think people like Howard van Till, John Polkinghorne,
Owen Gingerich etc. are performing a tremendous service to the Church in
showing
that it is possible to accept evolution without accepting the metaphysical
baggage
of some of evolutions proponents.
quoting Denton:
>"The Origin was revolutionary and shocking to Victorians because
>nineteenth-century England was steeped in biblical fundamentalism and
>creationist biology. The thesis Darwin had developed implied an end
>to the traditional and deeply held teleological and anthropocentric
>view of nature. Instead of being the pinnacle and end of creation,
>humanity was to be viewed ultimately as a cosmic accident, a produce
>of a random process no more significant than any one of the myriads of
>other species on earth.
>
>As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>catastrophic. The suggestion that life and man are the result of
>^^^^^^^^^^
>chance is incompatible with the biblical assertion of their being the
>direct result of intelligent creative activity. Despite the attempt
>by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can
>probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the
>intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of
>evolution than to any other single factor.
>
Here, Denton is guilty of one of the abuses I had in mind above. What
his motives are I don't know, perhaps he just doesn't know any better.
Evolution involves chance and selection, chance + selection is no longer
chance. If we add a third ingredient, chance + selection + self-organization,
things become even more interesting. In this view, the role of chance may
well be reduced to that of an efficient way of finding what is there to
begin with, i.e. chance may be an element of an overall design process.
[...]
Denton continued:
>
>It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>fundamental.
>^^^^^^^^^
Exactly the abuse of science that I mentioned above.
>No other intellectual revolution in modern times (with
>the possible exception of the Copernican) so profoundly affected the
>way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."
>
>(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
>1985, pp66-67)
>
>I wish to emphasise that I am *not* making any judgements on
>individual TE's. I regard them as my Christian brothers and esteem
>them better than myself (Phl 2:3). It is the *system* of Darwinism
>that I am implacably opposed to.
>
I suspect that you are opposed to the Darwinian World View (and rightly
so) instead of the science of evolutionary biology.
>I hope that has clarified my position! :-)
yes, indeed. I wish I knew what my position was so I could clarify it ;-).
I became interested in the evolution/creation debate only about a year and
half ago. It will probably take me awhile longer before I can get a handle
on things.
======================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |