>>(NR) If *unsupervised* and *impersonal* don't rule out TE, then look at the
>>conspicuous absence of the supernatural in the list of that which *affects*
>>evolution: natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and
>>changing environments.
>>
>
>(BH) I take it then that you acknowledge Dawkins, Futyama, Gould, the NABT,
>and the PUKE (Priesthood United to Kommunikate Evilutionism) as the
>Royal Priesthood of Science and whatever they say must be true?
No. You take it incorrectly. I've merely noticed that Dawkins, Futyama,
Gould, and the NABT fuel our culture's current (i.e., since about 1950
A.D.) religions philosophy--Naturalism. Even though what they communicate
about Christianity is false, Christians are unwise to ignore the atheistic
message they are sending to our culture.
To align ourselves with them, as TE's do, propogates confusion because
non-christian culture understands TE in the same way Gould advocates TE:
i.e. Science provides _knowledge_ about reality. Religion provides
_belief_. Beliefs don't have to have to do with reality. Therefore,
religion need not be influenced by reality. "Whatever you do," Gould would
say, "don't try to tell me your religious beliefs have anything to do with
knowledge of reality." (See the Scientific American book review of Darwin
on Trial by Gould (1992))
>Why isn't this done? Here is my suspicion. Some people really like
>the idea of a Royal Priesthood, they just want a different set of
>Priests.
I wouldn't mind new "Priests" who didn't affirm the self-refuting claim of
scientism--i.e. the only source of knowledge is science. (this
self-refutes because if science is the _only_ source of truth, how do they
know science is the only source. This claim comes not from science, but
from philosophy)
>>(NR) So if you're in the TE camp, please consider rejecting TE on the
>>basis >>that it refutes itself. Or at least wait to affirm TE until
>>after you aquire
>>cultural authority and use it to change the meaning of the word evolution.
>>
>
>(BH) The predominant meaning of creationism is literal, fundamentalist,
>young earth creationism. Will you reject being a creationist until
>you gain the cultural authority to change this definition?
Brian, the meaning of creationism is not decided by public opinion poll.
Nor is it decided by a small "priesthood" of scientists. It's meaning is
decided by the Bible and general revelation (recieved in part through
_testable_ science), which are the two sources of truth God endorses.
(Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19-20)
"The heavens declare the glory of God: the skies proclaim the work of his
hands. Day after day they pour forth speech;night after night they display
knowledge."
Psalm 19: 1-2 (NIV)
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made
it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's inisible
qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
Romans 1:19-20 (NIV)
These verses give us the green light to explore how God created through
science. The ICR is not by any means the source of meaning attached to the
word _creationism_. The Bible and science are.
So of course I won't reject creationism all because I gain cultural
authority to change the meaning. The meaning is becoming clearer and
clearer to everyone with every book that Hugh Ross writes :).
Neal K. Roys