I have recieved a single post from jpt entitled "The Cambrian Explosion" in
which he responds to dl's idea that PCs and YECs should feel ashamed that
they employ a double standard in applying the findings of secular scientists.
I am not sure if this means I am on the Reflector, but I will try to
comment on this anyway.
Denis wrote:
> What contributions are they actually making to the field, other than
> taking the data of others and skewing it into their THEOLOGICALLY
> (and suspiciously poor theology at that) based science?
First of all, how is it "bad theology" to believe in a conspiracy? I don't
know which translation of the Bible Denis uses, but my Bible talks a great
deal about a "Father of Lies" who is the "god of this world" and seeks to
"devour" unwary believers. If this is true, then no amount of mortal
paranoia would be sufficient to uncover the machinations of the REAL spiritual
conspirator. If not true, then the Bible is false and Jesus was a deranged
lunatic who was framed by his contemporaries. He is not the only begotten
Son of God, but a corpse and could no more save anyone than my dead
grandfather.
Secondly, the only difference between my "theologically based" science and
the science employed by the secular community is their consistent use
of materialist assumptions. Why did they resist the idea of the "Cambrian
Explosion"? Because it didn't fit with their materialist preconceptions.
After 100 years, the data has forced them to make their materialist
preconceptions flexible enough to encompass "fast transition theory" or
some other euphemism for the forbidden "saltationism". This doesn't mean
that they are more honest than their predecessors, it means they grew up in
a culture that had marginalized the idea of divine intervention enough so that
their atheism was not threatened by abandoning "artifact theory" and other
ideas that allowed them to explain away uncooperative data.
Now it is obvious to me that other Christians do have a "theologically based"
science and I express my skepticism to them at every prudent opportunity.
On the other hand, I do not know any of them who wouldn't acknowledge a
substantial Biblical bias and agree with the proposition that, "You have
to have faith to believe in the "literal" (i.e. YEC) account of creation."
Their position is quite different from atheists I talk with who say, "Of course
I am not biased by my atheism in favor of the theory of evolution, Rob. Who
wouldn't want to believe in Heaven? Who wouldn't want to believe in a
benevolent, omnipotent God, who loves us? As much as I DON'T want to believe
in evolution, I am simply forced to by the cold, hard facts. If anything,
your belief in God reflects your bias, Rob. You just can't handle the real
world, so you believe made up fairy tales about someone who died for your
character deficiencies. Face it, Rob, God just doesn't exist."
Prominent evolutionists not only know about, but employ, logic of this kind when
engaged in debate on political and social issues. Believe that human life has
something besides subjective value? You are a naive right wing Bible thumper
with an outmoded view of morality. Ignorant of the "truth" of science, your
position should not be taken seriously. I could go on and on, but the point
is that evolutionists are aware that their "science" has real world
implications and conveniently turn the other way as "facts" supporting a
materialist world view are wielded with devastating effect.
The bottom line is that atheists make the following claim:
The evidence from the natural realm shows that no supernatural
"creator" had any active role in the development of life. This
means that there is no God and we should behave accordingly.
Theistic evolutionists (presumably) agree with the first proposition, but
disagree with the second. I disagree with both propositions. In fact,
I believe the deficiencies in naturalistic explanations for the origin of
life suggest the existence of a divine creator and I argue in favor of this
position.
To Denis's question, "Don't you feel ashamed at using their research against
them when you don't contribute to the field?" I answer no. I would feel
shame if I felt secular scientists had a track record of acting in a
responsible fashion. Unfortunately for all of us, they don't.
in Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA