On Wed, 25 Oct 1995 19:29:40 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
>SJ> "Professor Huxley says that when he first read Darwin's book he
>regarded it as the death-blow of teleology, i.e. of the doctrine of
>design and purpose in nature...No argument...can be needed to show
>that Mr Darwin does teach that natural causes are `undirected' and
>that they act without design or reference to an end. This is not only
>explicitly and repeatedly asserted, but argued for, and the opposit
>view ridiculed and jejected," (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", Vol.
>II, 1960 (reprint), James Clark & Co: London, p16-18).
LH>Macroevolution is a death-blow to one VERSION of the "design
>argument" --- a version which relied exclusively on an analogy
>between living organisms and complex machines assembled by craftsmen.
>That hardly counts as destroying "the doctrine of design and purpose
>in nature."
Sorry, Loren, but I have seen no compelling evidence that there is
such a thing as "Macroevolution"! Even Hoyle, a non-Christian, in a
chapter entitled, "The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve",
believes that Paley's design argument, far from receiving a "
death-blow" is alive and well:
"The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as
we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts
throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the
scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with
a chance of being the ultimate winner." (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe
C., "Evolution from Space", J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1981,
pp96-97)
LH>Quite a few non-theistic "Darwinist" scientists disagree with
>Huxley on this point. (And some of their quotations --- regarding
>how certain aspects of nature appears to be "designed" --- have even
>made it onto this discussion group.)
I have not seen them AFAIK. The mainstream Darwinist view is that the
"Blind Watchmaker" rules out design:
"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by
the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong,
gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye,
between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the
contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of
physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has
foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their
interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural
selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin
discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence
and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.
It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future.
It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to
play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p5)
>SJ> If TE's could make a real break with philosophical naturalism,
>then they would be able to make their case against Darwinism's
>anti-theism. But instead they criticise those like Johnson who try
>to take the fight up to naturalism.
>TEs have been writing books and articles against philosophical naturalism
>since long before _Darwin_on_Trial_. So have some PCs, for that matter.
>It is simply incorrect to imply that TEs have been complacent while PCs
>have carried the fight. (For many decades, there has been a fair amount
>of complacency, and a few eloquent warriors, amongst both PCs and TEs.)
I would like some substantiation of this. Which TE's have written
against "philosophical naturalism"?
LH>There may be a few exceptions, but on the whole I believe that TE
>critiques of Phillip Johnson's work have been confined to Christian
>scholarly magazines and conferences, which is where such critiques belong.
>Ideally, this is motivated by, and perceived as, an attempt to _improve_
>PJ's arguments, so that he can be more effective in his battle.
I doubt that this is the case. Johnson has describes the TE's resonse
to DOT as "resistance" by "ardent defenders of Darwinism" (Phillip E.
Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity
Today, October 24, 1994, p26).
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------