At 12:21 PM 3/17/96 EST, Steve wrote:
[...]
>
>>SJ>Johnson (and I) agree that God could have used natural processes
>>that could be called "evolution":
>>
>>"...A Creator might well have employed such a gradual process as a
>>means of creation...." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",... p3-4).
>
>BH>What PJ is saying here is that theistic evolutionists (most anyway)
>>are also creationists. My, that word creation is such a plastic
>>word, it can mean almost anything ;-).
>
SJ:==
>No. Phil consistently and carefully defines his terms up front:
>
[snipped PJ quote]
I think you are missing the point here. Phil does an admirable
job of defining his terms. Why is this necessary? To avoid
confusion due to the fact that creationism can mean so many different
things. So, Phil is to be commended for defining terms carefully.
But Futyama does exactly the same thing. Due to possible confusion
over the word evolution he carefully defines his terms. You praise
Phil and criticise Futyama for doing the same thing.
>
>BH>I wonder why some creationists object to the label evolutionary
>>creationist. This would seem to have Phil's blessing.
>
SJ:==
>Firstly, it is the Theistic Evolutionists (or Evolutionary
>creationists) who first attacked Phil. His first edition of DOT
>contained hardly anything about TE, ie:
>
I am not quite sure what motivated this, but here goes ... :-).
First of all, I don't recall anyone ever attacking Phil, and
I've been on this reflector a long time. For example, I witnessed
the debate surrounding the document which became the appendix
of Reason in the Balance (I think I have a lot of the exchanges
archived somewhere) and many other debates about MN TR and theistic
naturalism. It is true that several people attacked Phil's ideas,
but I cannot remember any personal attacks.
"If you are carrying the ball, expect to get tackled" :-)
-- Hubert Yockey
SJ:==
>"The ASA leadership has generally embraced "compatibilism" (the
>doctrine that science and religion do not conflict because they
>occupy separate realms) and "theistic evolution." Theistic evolution
>is not easy to define, but it involves making an effort to maintain
>that the natural world is God-governed while avoiding disagreement
>with the Darwinist establishment on scientific matters." (Johnson ,
>pp128-129).
My, now that's a nice one. Shall we have a poll? How many TE's
try to avoid "...disagreement with the Darwinist establishment
on scientific matters".
SJ:===
>But for his pains, PJ came under criticism from TE's:
>
He was criticised by those who disagreed with him. Why should it
be otherwise?
SJ:==
>"My secular colleagues usually assume that a book which challenges the
>central pillar of scientific naturalism must have been received with
>wild enthusiasm in the Christian world. It is true that many
>Christian readers are enthusiastic, but there are also many with
>serious reservations....One group with which I have been
>particularly engaged in discussion and debate consists of the
>Christian professors of science and philosophy who attempt to
>accommodate science and religion by embracing "theistic evolution."
>(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition*, 1993, pp128-129).
>
Ah, the myth that TE is a compromise.
[...]
SJ:==
>But there is a real problem with knowing what "evolution" means to
>Darwinists, because they change their definitions of the term even in
>the same context:
>
Wouldn't it be better to support this accusation by quoting
Darwinists?
[snipped PJ quote]
>BH>It seems to me that this supports my position rather than yours.
>>Dobzhansky is pointing out that there are different types of
>>evolution. He is carefully pointing out that he is discussing
>>biological evolution. He seems to be giving a caution to the
>>reader "There are other types of evolution, don't get confused
>>by the terminology."
>
SJ:==
>No doubt. But what exactly is this "concept of evolution" that is
>"much broader"? Why, if "biological evolution and chemical evolution
>are separate issues" are they both called "evolution"?
>
They aren't. one is called biological evolution the other is
called chemical evolution.
>>SJ>...You seem to be agreeing with me. :-) My point was that
>>"Yockey...is not a "Darwinist". You have stated that: a)
>>"Yockey....As far as I know... is an agnostic"; and b) He doesn't
>>believe in "chemical evolution".
>
>BH>Well, I don't know Stephen, Yockey says that he is a Darwinist. In
>>his book he writes:
>>
>> Thermodynamics and the theory of evolution by natural selection
>> are among the great scientific theories of the nineteenth century.
>> (page 310)
>
SJ:==
>That does not make Yockey a Darwinist. I am a creationist and I regard
>
OK, I'll put the ball in your court. You originally claimed
that Yockey is a "non-Darwinian thinker". I have given evidence
from his own words that he is a Darwinist which you continue
to pooh pooh. So, please provide some support for your original
claim. Previously you said he is not a Darwinist because he
rejects the origin of life by chance. I cannot think of any
modern origin of life researcher who thinks that the origin
of life occurred by chance. Are they all non-Darwinist thinkers
then?
[...]
>>BH>Here again I think we have a problem with popularizations. I
>>don't think there is any question that Dawkins would like to tie
>>the origin of life with Darwinism.
>
>SJ>Its not just "Dawkins" that "would like to tie the origin of life
>>with Darwinism."
>
>BH>I don't doubt that at all :). The point is whether its proper
>>to do so.
>
SJ:==
>We are agreed that it is not "proper to do so" but the myth has been
>assiduously cultivated, so that it has entered popular culture. And I
>don't see Darwinists trying very hard to correct it.
Try linking Darwinism to the Origin of Life on talk.origins and
see what happens. Be sure you are wearing flame retardant
clothes :-).
[...]
>
>BH>Based upon my own experiences, I wouldn't be too surprised if your
>>daughter's textbook botches up its presentation of abiogenesis.
>
>Of course it does! :-) From the outset it simply asserts:
>
[...] Thanks for the info. I guess I can add this text to my
list of abiogenesis botchups.
continued ....
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================