On Sat, 13 Apr 1996 13:10:25 -0400 you wrote:
TG>Here are a couple of comments, Art.
>
>1. Why don't we suggest the same exercise for atomic theory? What would
>be the outcome?
Like Denis, the counter-attack first. I am sure that exponents of
"atomic
theory" can and do think of evidences against their theory. But Art's
challenge was for *evolutionists* on the Reflector to think of
evidences against their theory and post them.
TG>2. You may be surprised to hear this, but I could make a case
>against evolutionary theory. I know the counter arguments well--both
>the scientific ones and the religious ones. My guess is that they
>would sound a lot like yours or Phil Johnson's or Mike Behe's, etc.
>And I'm squarely in the camp of the critics of neo-Darwinism such as
>Gould, Goodwin, and Kauffman.
Good. Well how about *posting* what you think are the main evidences
against your theory?
TG>The other point is that my worldview allows both an evolutionary
>possibility (i.e. a theistic, divinely governed process) or a
>special creationist possibility--God certainly is able to do what the
>special creationists say.
Good. What about Progressive Creation? Or is this included in "special
creation"?
TG>3. My question is whether you can be objective--doesn't your
>Adventist theology demand a young-earth, special creationist
>perspective? And this goes for all theologies that are committed to
>a young-earth, literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1.
Again the counter-attack. Even if SDA' are committed to a "young-
earth" position (I don't know that they are) that is irrelevant to
Art's
(and Kerkut's) challenge.
TG>I don't need to be lectured about presuppositions, paradigms, and
>worldviews--I work within a theological and a philosophical framework
>(Reformed, Kuyperian, C. Van Tillian) that is well aware of these
>issues. But you're the one who raised the issue of objectivity.
It is noteworthy that you don't mention the evolutionary "paradigm".
TG>Perhaps I've missed the point of your post, but this is what came
>to mind.
Indeed I think you have Terry. :-) Your post is alternatively
counter-attacking and defensive. Why don't you just openly list
what you consider the main arguments against evolutionary theory?
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------