You have good taste in reading material. :-)
LH>What do I mean by "punctuated naturalism"? Here's an example from _Reason i
LH>the Balance_ by Phillip Johnson.
LH>> Page 14: "The culurally important element in the Darwinian theory is not t
LH>> claim that there was some process of ancestral descent in biology, nor is
LH>> the claim that biological creation was a gradual and lengthy process rathe
LH>> than the single week described literally in Genesis. Such claims have to d
LH>> only with the method of creaiton, not the nature of the creator. The
LH>> important claim is the one that substitutes a purposeless material process
LH>> for the Creator."
LH>After arguing at great lengths that the concept of a "Purposeless Material
LH>Process" is an inseparable element of Darwinian theory, Johnson goes
LH>on to write,
Loren, is one small followup paragraph "arguing at great lengths"?
Johnson can argue to great lengths but he generally takes more than a
paragraph! ;-)
LH>> Page 15: "In _Darwin on Trial_ I examined the evidence for the blind
LH>> watchmaker thesis and found it wholly unsatisfactory to persuade an unbias
LH>> mind that biological creation occurred in the way Darwinists say it did.
LH>> That is not to say that all the claims that come under the label "evolutio
LH>> are false. There is no question that evolution of the Darwinian kind occur
LH>> in the sense that types of living organisms have a certain capacity for
LH>> variation. This is a process commonly called microevolution...."
LH>So Johnson is inadvertently saying here that microevolution is a
LH>Purposeless Material Process! That seems like very bad theology, or at
LH>the very least, a poor choice of words.
It appears to be a poor choice of words. When I read it I felt that the
hair was sufficiently split and in his full context I personally
understood the point that he was making.
LH>This example is not unique. Over and over again, in books, articles, and
LH>lectures, I've encountered similar language by Christians which _implies_
LH>that if God isn't doing something miraculous, then he's not doing anything
LH>important.
But wasn't Johnson being explicit on page 14, backing up a page or so
grab the context, about Darwin's theory? I can't pick up on the leap to
your followup observation. Johnson was willing to admit to what is
observable... microevolution. Too often creationists are criticized for
denying this fact. The page 15 paragraph continues...
"...microevolution, and it accounts for such things as the variant
characteristics of plants and animals that have been transported to an
isolated island environment. The problem is, there is no evidence for,
and very much evidence against, the Darwinian assumption that some
similar process of step-by-step gradual change produced the basic body
plans of plants and animals in the first place or brought about the
existence of complex organs like wings and eyes. Conceivably there was
some mysterious process by which later groups grew out of earlier ones,
but if so, we know very little about it."
Johnson is an attorney. His method of argument and use of language is
that of an attorney and evidence based.
These quotes come from the introduction, which tactically may emulate
the introductory presentation to the jury with his "case" following in
the subsequent chapters. Johnson is convincing the jury and materialists
hate it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Putting a question correctly is one thing and finding the answer to it
is something quite different."
Anton Chekhov
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Durham
pdd@gcc.cc.md.us
LH>Punctuated Naturalism.
LH>To be fair, I've read a few very eloquent descriptions of Providence, and ho
LH>it applies to material processes, in ID/PC literature. But in my experience
LH>those have been the exception rather than the rule.
LH>So, is this a minor problem, or a serious one? If serious, what can we do t
LH>change it?
LH>Loren Haarsma
to: IN:lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu