Brian Harper just finished writing to you (7 Apr) regarding your READING
SKILLS and handling of texts:
> Steve. Its no wonder people end up either shouting at you or
> ignoring you. You read through a popular level book describing
> the "new biology" and you conclude (apparently) almost immediately
> that the results are evidence for PC or ID, nevermind that
> Goodwin has spent many years developing these ideas and doesn't
> see this overwhelming evidence you speak of.
> I suspect you missed the point of the book entirely . . .
I could not agree more with Brian, especially after seeing you attempt
to enter the world of Darwin Scholarship 24 Mar 96.
However, I must admit I am flattered because I believe I have encouraged
you to reseach some of the Darwin PRIMARY LITERATURE. So that Phase I of
your education has started, we can now work on Phase II--a course in
learning how to read the PRIMARY LITERATURE, which in reality is
simply a course in Remedial Reading.
For those who want a flaming example of EISEGESIS please read the Darwin
quotes Stephen cites in their full context in the "Origin of Species" and
then read Stephen's interpretation of them. One may not believe in
biological evolution, but one will believe in intellectual
evolution because Stephen transmutates Darwin's words into an entirely
new species by his commentary in just one post. And once you see how
Stephen skews Darwin, ask yourself the question, "Does Stephen do the same
with his science?" Is Stephen to be trusted when he quotes evolutionary
biologists in the name of his creationism?
On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, Stephen Jones wrote:
> Group
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:09:43 -0700 (MST) Denis Lamoureux wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> DL>2) Concordance to the 1st Ed of The Origin. Paul H. Barrett, et.
> >al., eds. Cornell U Press (1981). Yep, just like in theology, a
> >concordance. Of note, there are 7 unapologetic and positive
> >references to the Creator (yes, capital "C"). Pp. 186, 188, 189,
> >413, 413 and 489. The word definitely does not show up in that
> >famous (brilliant . . . oh, oh, I'll be getting a blast for this from
> >Stephen Jones ;-) last sentence.
>
> Even allowing for the wink smilicon, I have no idea why Denis should
> assume that I don't think Darwin was a "brilliant" writer. For the
> record, I believe that Darwin was a genius, and I think his writing in
> the Origin was superb, and at times even "brilliant".
Lovely. Thank you. You can count on me going out on my way to use your
words here against you in some future post. So, you've been warned.
STEPHEN'S THESIS:
> But as to Denis' assertion that these references to a "Creator" were
> "unapologetic and positive", I disagree. I will post all references by
> Darwin to a "Creator" in his Origin of Species with some comment by
> me, and let Reflectorites judge for themselves:
> 1. Darwin believed that that theistic statements "it has pleased the
> Creator" are meaningless:
>
> "He who believes in separate and innumerable acts of creation
> may say that in these cases it has pleased the Creator to
> cause a being of one type to take the place of one belonging
> to another type; but this seems to me only re-stating the fact
>
> in dignified language." (Darwin C., "The Origin of Species",
> 6th edition, 1872, Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd:
> London, 1967 reprint, p164).
Stephen, do you know who Darwin is addressing in this quote? It is the
scholarship of the day--Progressive Creationism. The entire "Origin of
Species" is a polemic against the PC in his day. It is not an attack on
the Creator. For that matter, read what is stated: according to Darwin
the language of the PCs is only a "re-stating [of] the fact" . . . of
what? Yes, the FACT of the Creator's work. So, Stephen, you're wrong.
This is "an unapologetic and positive" reference to the "Creator (yes,
capital "C")". My thesis stands, you are wrong.
Of course, it certainly is not your Creator or your view of creation--but
I then never said it was.
You might be interested to know that while on Beagle (1831-1836) Darwin
wrote in his diary:
"Periods of Creation have been distinct & remote the one from the other;
that the Creator rested in his labor."
Yep, Darwin once was a PC, just like you!!! Anyone want to say Darwin was
maybe truckling in his OWN diary? And, yes, there is that capital "C"
again.
And here just a few other Diary quotes to tell you where Darwin was
theologically while on the Beagle:
"One hand has surely worked throughout the universe"
Kinda sounds like Ps 19, eh?
"Amongst the scenes which are deeply impressed on my mind, none exceed
in sublimity the primeval forests, . . . [for they] are temples filled
with the varied productions of the God of Nature. No one can stand
unmoved in these solitudes, without feeling that there is more in man
than the mere breath of his body."
Sounds like a fairly theological fellow, eh? More anon.
> 2. Darwin denies that there is any analogy between "the Creator" and
> human "intellectual power". He therefore implicitly denies the
> Biblical doctrine that man is made in the image of God. Darwin's
> "Creator" if He even exists, is therefore presumably unknowable:
>
> "It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a
> telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by
>
> the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects;
> and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a
> somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be
> presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator
> works by intellectual powers like those of man?" (Darwin,
> p169).
Your commentary on this passage simply takes my breath away. WOW! Is
there anyone of the Stephen supporters on this reflector who want to agree
with him here? Stephen, you have made some pretty outrageous
statements on the reflector but this is got to be the most outrageous.
This is a passage that FULLY supports the existence of the Creator!!! It
is debating on whether the Creator's method of creation is analogous to
man's creative methods. In a way (and I won't push this too far because I
don't think Darwin is actually using a Biblical category here), it is like
saying, "God's ways are not man's ways," more specially, God's way of
creating is not like man's way of creating. To suggest otherwise, as
Darwin claims, is "presumptuous." This is a passage that FULLY maintains
the reality and existence of the Creator, the debate is on how the Creator
created.
This is "an unapologetic and positive" reference to the "Creator (yes,
capital "C")". My thesis stands, you are wrong.
> 3. Indeed, Darwin's "Creator" is just "a power, represented by natural
> selection"*:
>
> "If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought
>
> in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue,
> with spaces filled with fluid, and with a nerve sensitive to
> light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be
> continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into
>
> layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at
> different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of
> each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose
> that there is a power, represented by natural selection or the
> survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight
> alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully preserving
>
> each which, under varied circumstances, in any way or in any
> degree, tends to produce a distinctive image. We must suppose
>
> each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the
> million; each to be preserved until a better one is produced,
> and then the old ones to be all destroyed. In living bodies,
> variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will
> multiply them almost infinitely) and natural selection will
> pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this
> process go on for millions of years- and during each year on
> millions of individuals of many kinds and may we not believe
> that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as
> superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to
> those of man?" (Darwin, pp169-170).
>
> *Darwin's personnification of natural selection makes it difficult to
> escape the conclusion that his God was natural selection.
Stephen, remarkable statement. Do you not even read your own rhetoric
after you have written down? You just "concluded" that Darwin's God is
natural selection, but in Point # 7 below you state:
> 7. Darwin denied special creation and believed in a deistic "Creator"
> who impressed laws on matter:
So what is it Stephen? Is Darwin's God natural selection or a deistic
"Creator"???? Pick one! You can't have it both ways.
Now regarding the quote in Point #4, you are correct--Darwin does make use
of personification. It is a literary device often used in English. Read
all the references to a Creator in "The Origin of Species" and you'll note
that Darwin believed in a Creator. Then come to this passage and the only
logical interpretation is that he personifies Natural Selection . . . no
more no less. One could use the very same literary device to describe
ecological relationships today.
Again (cf. previous point # 2), Darwin is arguing the theme that the
Creator's method of creation is superior to that of man:
> Let this
> process go on for millions of years- and during each year on
> millions of individuals of many kinds and may we not believe
> that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as
> superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to
> those of man?" (Darwin, pp169-170).
This is "an unapologetic and positive" reference to the "Creator (yes,
capital "C")". My thesis stands, you are wrong.
> 4. Darwin denied that "structures have been created for the sake of
> beauty, to delight man or the Creator" (ie. he denied teleology as a
> scientific explantion), and in fact claimed that "Such doctrines, if
> true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory"*:
>
> "The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the
> protest lately made by some naturalists, against the
> utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been
> produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that
> many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to
> delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond
> the scope of scientific discussions), or for the sake of mere
> variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if true,
> would be absolutely fatal to my theory." (Darwin, p184).
>
> *Note that Darwin, whose degree was in theology would be well aware
> that Christianity taught exactly that:
Stephen, this is not an general attack on teleology!!! You grossly
overstate your case. This is a passage against the Utilitarian Doctrine
that "every detail" of biological structure has been ordained by the
Creator and has a purpose. Darwin believed in
a Creator who set up laws (thus by definition he believed in a teleology,
albeit a general overall teleology), but that at
the level of details there appeared to be an operative dysteleology.
Support for my interpretation is found in an 1870 letter to Richard Hooker
(Yes, the man Darwin wrote the famous "truckle" letter to in 1963):
"Your conclusion that all speculation about [theology] is idle waste of time
is the only wise one; but how difficult not to speculate! My theology is
a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result of blind
chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of
design of any kind, in the details."
Furthermore, Stephen, you will quote below in #7:
> To my mind it accords better with what we know of
> the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the
> production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants
> of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like
> those determining the birth and death of the individual.
If the Creator is "impressing" laws on matter, then Darwin's science is
by definition TELEOLOGICAL at that level. If God is impressing laws,
then this is a designed and purposeful set of laws. Your comments here
only make me wonder it you really know what the word TELEOLOGY means.
> "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field
> grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even
> Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is
> how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and
> tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O
> you of little faith? (Mt 6:28-30)
Stephen, really . . . do you think the intent of this passage was to
support natural theology? Was Jesus arguing for natural theology in this
passage? But then authorial intentionality may not be an important tenet
in your hermeneutics.
> Therefore, Darwin himself forced an antithesis between his
> theory and Christian teaching about God's design and purpose
> revealed in nature.
Stephen, Darwin was talking at the level of the DETAILS of nature, not
a GENERAL or overall design in nature. He believed in design and purpose
at the level of general laws, not at the level of the details in nature
which is exactly what the UTILITARIAN DOCTRINE was arguing for.
> 5. Darwin denied that the natural system "reveals the plan of the
> Creator":
>
> "The ingenuity and utility of this system are indisputable.
> But many naturalists think that something more is meant by the
>
> Natural System; they believe that it reveals the plan of the
> Creator; but unless it be specified whether order in time or
> space, or both, or what else is meant by the plan of the
> Creator, it seems to me that nothing is thus added to our
> knowledge." (Darwin, p396)
Shame on you Stephen Jones! Shame on you. If this isn't a classic example
of your shameful incompetent method I don't know what is. You have
shamefully handled (and I am almost ready to say "manipulated") the text,
and misled the readers of this reflector.
Folks, what is the "natural system" being referred to here? Stephen
doesn't tell you, and as it is being used by him one gets
the impression that Darwin is clearly against natural revelation or
natural theology. But if Stephen would have read and quoted the BEGINNING
of the paragraph where he drew this passage he would have found:
"Naturalists try to arrange the species, genera, and families in
each class, on what is called the Natural System."
That is, the Natural System is the TAXONOMICAL SYSTEM upheld by the
biologists of Darwin's the day. This sentence is then followed by Darwin
asking:
"But what is meant by this system?"
And Darwin gives two answers:
(1) "Some authors look at it merely as a scheme for arranging together
those living objects which are most alike, and for separating those which
are most unlike . . ."
(2) "But many naturalists think that something most is meant by the
Natural System; they believe that it reveals the plan of the Creator..."
So there are some (1) who just see the taxonomical system as practical
tool for ordering living organisms, and others (2) who say is reveals "the
plan of the Creator." But what plan? It's the Linnean notion that
taxonomical system reflected the Mind of God. More specifically, it was a
system that was Platonic/essentialistic in nature and carried the
assumption that God created definitive and separate species (ie, de novo).
(You see these very same, and thus old, arguments with today's PCs).
With this background, it is quite easy to understand Darwin's attack. It
is not against the Creator. It is against the commonly held ASSUMPTION
that the taxanomical system reflected a Platonic/essentialistic view of
life which stood against any evolutionary position of Creation.
Darwin is NOT attacking God or natural revelation, but a THEOLOGY (yes,
a theology) which he deemed false. That is why he immediately charges:
"but unless it be specified whether order in time or space, or what else
is meant by the plan of the Creator, it seems to me that nothing is thus
added to our knowledge."
And Darwin is right. THIS taxonomical system did not give the order
of God's creating or times and places of creation. In other words, the
Natural System was basically ahistorical, and Darwin believed that
properly interpreted within an evolutionary context taxonomy revealed
"something more." He asserts:
"I believe that more is included [than mere resemblance], and that
propinquity of descent--...--is the bond, hidden as it is by various
degrees of modification, which is partially revealed to us by our
classifications."
Again, this is not an anti-Creator passage. It is against the
Platonic/essentialistic taxonomical system of his day.
This is "an unapologetic and positive" reference to the "Creator (yes,
capital "C")". My thesis stands, you are wrong.
> 6. Darwin denied that homologous limbs were evidence of teleology
> and indeed that theistic explanations were not "scientific":
>
> "Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this
> similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility
>
> or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the
> attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most
> interesting work on the Nature of Limbs. On the ordinary view
>
> of the independent creation of each being, we can only say
> that so it is,-that it has pleased the Creator to construct
> all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform
> plan; but this is not a scientific explanation." (Darwin,
> p414-415)
Here is a blantant example of Stephen Jones' unfamiliarity with the
PRIMARY LITERATURE and the INTELLECTUAL MILIEU within which it is found.
Stephen, what exactly is this concept of "utility" or "doctrine of final
causes" in 19th century biology? Is it the same as the philosophical
notion of teleology as we know it today? According to your interpretation
it is. However, the word "teleology" IN 19TH CENTURY BIOLOGY is NOT the
same as when you and I use the word today in its PHILOSOPHICAL sense. And
here are two points I made on the very subject in my PhD dissertation
(1991):
(1) In reflecting on biology in the 19th century, E.S. Russell
writes, "The contrast between the TELEOLOGICAL attitude,
with its instance upon the priority of function to structure, and the
MORPHOLOGICAL attitude, with its conviction of the priority of structure
to function, is one of the most fundamental in biology." Form and
Function (1916: 78). The teleological attitude was associated with the
ultilitarian argument of design and emphasized the adaptibility of
organisms to their environment. It characterized the antievolutionism
during the 1830s of the Bridgewater Treatises. By contrast the
morphological attitude came to the forefront in 1840s and emphasized
anatomical structure.
(2) Evangelical Asa Gray in Nature (1874: 81) writes: "Let us recognize
Darwin's great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it
Teleology: so that instead of Morphology vs Teleology, we shall have
Morphology wedded to Teleology."
Stephen, want to touch this quote?
Darwin was reacting against a narrow use of the teleological ATTITUDE, not
the philosophical notion of TELEOLOGY. A limiting of biology to only the
teleological ATTITUDE (ie, function only), according to Darwin, failed to
appreciate the importance of the morphological attitude in biology.
Again, Darwin is not attacking the Creator or TELEOLOGY (in its
philosophical sense), but the 19th century idea of Utility (The
TELEOLOGICAL ATTITUDE)--the restrictive view of biology that limits
biology to functionality.
Moreover, Darwin is arguing that the "ordinary view of independent
creation of each being" doesn't explain all the homologies (ie, the
morphological attitude) seen in Owen's limb studies.
"How inexplicable are these facts on the ordinary view of creation!" p.437
Darwin is saying an evolutionary view EXPLAINS these homologies, while
giving the response "it has pleased the Creator to construct all the
animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan" is failing to
account for the OBVIOUS. Darwin is not trying to destroy the principle of
Creation, rather he tring to describe the method of God's creating more
accurately. He looks at the taxonomical system of this day and affirms it
in claiming:
"I believe this element of descent (ie, evolutionary continuity) is the
HIDDEN BOND of connexion which naturalists have sought under the term of
the Natural System."
Again, this is "an unapologetic and positive" reference to the "Creator
(yes,capital "C")". My thesis stands, you are wrong.
> 7. Darwin denied special creation and believed in a deistic "Creator"
> who impressed laws on matter:
>
> "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied
> with the view that each species has been independently
> created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of
> the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the
> production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants
> of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like
> those determining the birth and death of the individual. When
>
> I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal
> descendants of some few beings which lived long before the
> first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to
> me to become ennobled." (Darwin, p462).
Well, I finally agree with you! But of course, Darwin's words
and even YOUR commentary betray your thesis:
STEPHEN'S THESIS:
> But as to Denis' assertion that these references to a "Creator" were
> "unapologetic and positive", I disagree. I will post all references by
> Darwin to a "Creator" in his Origin of Species with some comment by
> me, and let Reflectorites judge for themselves:
So what do you say Guys? Is this passage not an "unapologetic and
positive" reference to the Creator?
This is "an unapologetic and positive" reference to the "Creator (yes,
capital "C")". My thesis stands, you are wrong.
> 8. Again, Darwin's view of "the Creator" was deistic (if even that*),
> referring only to an original in-breathing, which set in train a
> purely naturalistic process that Darwin saw as "the war of nature":
>
> "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most
>
> exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the
> production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is
> grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
>
> been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
> into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on
> according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a
> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
>
> been, and are being evolved." (Darwin, p463).
>
> *E.O. Wilson claims Darwin later wrote (no reference is given) that he
>
> did not mean a "Creator" in the Biblical sense:
Stephen, I NEVER claimed Darwin's Creator was is the Biblical Creator!!!
This is another example of you failing to read PROPERLY someone's
position, and then you firing off with you Fundamentalist rhetoric. Learn
to read, man, before you start typing on your computer!
> So Denis regards the above references to "the Creator" as
> "unapologetic and positive"??? I would regard them as the direct
> opposite (polemical and negative) and part of a sustained subtle
> campaign waged by Darwin to undermine and overthrow the Christian
> doctrine of creation, and therefore of Christianity itself, as Gould
> confirms:
You are confused Stephen. Why do you CONFLATE these references to the
"Creator" with the Christian doctrine of Creation and Christianity is
proof to me you failed to understand my original assertion. Bluntly, you've
got a reading problem. I have noted this knee-jerk Fundamentalist
tendency in your posts Stephen, and I know it very much irritates people.
I have come, however, to accept it as your method.
As always your northern friend and brother in Christ,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------