On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 08:23:45 -0500 you wrote:
>Thanks for trying again Stephen, but as you can see below, it failed again.
> I'll look it up in Strong's.
Amazing. I will try again, because the rest of the message was
aborted. But this time I will type it all by hand!
[...]
"The Heb word for "subdue" in Gn 1:28 is very strong:
"3533. kabash. kaw-bash'; a prim. root; to tread down; hence
neg. to disregard; pos. to conquer, subjugate, violate:--bring
into bondage, force, keep under, subduw, brong into subjection."
(Strongs)
The Earth was "good" but not perfect. Man's intervention was required
to complete God's plan. Similarly, there is no reason to limit God's
freedom to intervene directly in developing His biological creation.
The desire to limit God's involvement in His living creation, to only
His immanent working via providence, stems from human philosophy,
not the Bible.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BH>Anyway, I would expect it to be strong. When God trains men, if
>indeed that's what He's doing, He doesn't pull any punches. To be a
>perfect training environment, earth would _have_ to be challenging.
Fine, but this seems to be shifting the deinition of "perfect"? A
perfect training environment could even be a fallen world!
BH>With regard to the definition of evolution: Stephen holds the
position
>many (perhaps most) creationists do. I can understand why he does. In
>response to that definition or perhaps some other proposed approach to
>defusing the conflict, Phil said, "Why then there wouldn't be anything to
>fight over," when he was at Calvin College a few weeks ago. Phil is right
>that as Christians we can't just roll over and accept the metaphysical
>baggage that often comes with evolution. There are at least two strategies
>to not accepting it, however:
Phil may have been being facetious. I don't see any glory in fighting
for fighting's sake. Indeed, it would be against the Biblical
injunction to "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at
peace with everyone" (Rom 12:18).
Creationists fight evolution because they think it is *wrong*.
BH>1) Insist on the creationist definition of evolution (common
descent) and
>attack evolution; 2) Accept the geneticists' definition of evolution and
>point out unjustified metaphysical assumptions when they are stated or
>implied. I'm not saying I categorically reject common descent. I don't,
>so long as it is recognized that Divine direction cannot be ruled out
>scientifically, and is absolutely required by Scripture, which we know by
>the testimony of the Holy Spirit to be true. I'm just saying that the
>leaders of the evolution research field have focused on genetics, probably
>because it's something a rigorous research program can be built around.
>Fine. Let them have their definition, and when they engage in flights of
>fancy ala Dawkins, point out the difficulty of supporting Dawkins' views
>from the very limited foundation they are built on.
You have just recently posted that Eldredge in his debate with Phil
has insisted that "common descent" is the irreducible minimum of
evolution. The point is that Darwinists might use the geneticists
definition of evolution:
"Evolution is any change in gene frequency in a population."
(Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on Earth", Sinauer Associates:
Sunderland Mass., 1973, p772)
but in the back of their mind, they will still insist on all the
elements in my definition:
"All livings things, past and present, are descended with
modification from a common ancestor, by a fully naturalistic
process, involving random mutations and cumulative natural
selection mechanisms".
Indeed, one could easily derive my defintion from just about any
Darwinist work.
BH>Why do I make an issue of this? Well, Stephen, imagine yourself in
the
>midst of a challenge you probably have had to deal with at one time or
>another: a disease that could become an epidemic. You have to make vaccine
>available, if it's available, possibly quaranteen affected people, and
>possibly trace the source of the disease. All of these activities are
>based on knowledge of the cause and transmission of the particular disease
>involved. Now suppose a group of people show up and challenge your
>proposed actions. Further suppose these people have no experience in
>public health or the life sciences, and have never made any contributins of
>their own to either field. How wuld you react? About like the people in
>the evolution research community I suspect, because that is how they see
>creationist attacks.
This is a bit of a red-herring. :-) Creationists are generally not
attacking science per se, certainly not practical applied science like
medicine, but they are attacking the *metaphysical-naturalistic
assumptions* behind much of what passes for evolutionary science.
I also think that to be fair, you should distinguish between extreme
young-Earth creationism and broad creationism generally. In the back
of your mind, you may be still thinking of the ICR brand of
creationism and lumping me into it?
BH>My burden is to bring the Gospel to scientists and
>intellectuals. It's difficult enough to bring the Gospel to _anyone_
>without adding unnecessary challenges on issues that have no meaning to
>nonChristians. So from my perspective the approach should be 1) Lead them
>to Christ, assuring them if necessary that Christianity is not about the
>age of the earth or about evolution but about Jesus Christ; 2) Once they
>become Christians, then they must read Genesis with the Holy Spirit guiding
>their interpretations. _Trust_ the Holy Spirit not to lead them astray.
That is my approach too. It may be even the ICR's approach, for all I
know.
BH>I should add that Stephen (and Phil and others) keep harping on
"Darwinian"
>evolution. However, while most evolution researchers today revere Darwin
>and will even call themselves Darwinians, I don't believe they have a
>rigorous, consistent definition of Darwinism. Niles Eldredge is a good
>example. He calls himself a Darwinian, but I doubt Dawkins would want to
>accept him as a Darwinian. Even Dawkins rejects some of what Darwin
>taught. Does that make him a nonDarwinian? I don't think it's a fruitful
>line of attack to try to hold evolutionists to a definition they have no
>concensus on.
The point is that I don't necessarily have a problem with
non-Darwinian evolution. Indeed, Progressive Creation could be
arguably a form of non-Darwinian evolution! :-) Creationists do
however have a problem with the "blind watchmaker" Neo-Darwinist model
of evolution, that Dawkins has argued, without real contradiction, as
is the only possible naturalistic explanation of adaptive complexity.
Indeed, I think you will find, that Gould and Eldredge will, when
the chips are down, still admit they are Darwinians.
There is still no other regnant theory of evolution but Darwinism
(including all its varieties). When such a new theory becomes dominant
and replaces Darwinism, then creationists will evaluate that and see
if it is compatible with creationism. If it is, fine. If its not, then
a new fight will begin.
Thanks and God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------