If this is the true aim of Phillip Johnson, why is he so dead set against
those who are THEISTIC evolutionists? He calls them metaphysical naturalists
or something like that. Theistic evolution is most surely a branch of THEISTIC
science.
>It asks
>the question: should science be undertaken with the prerequisite
>of naturalism, or should it be open to theistic possibilities?
>Some years ago, a book was published with the title "Chance and
>Necessity". Its message was that everything is either the
>result of chance or the consequence of law. The theistic
>alternative is to say that there is a genuine third option:
>things may be the result either of chance, or law, or intelligent
>design.
Natural laws like V=iR and F=GMm/r^2 etc can be viewed as subsets of
intelligent design. And chance, as in the creation of Sierpinski's gasket, can
be controlled by law (rules like if you roll a 1 or 2 on the die move halfway
to point 1, a 2 or three; move halfway to point two etc.). By uniting chance
and rules/laws you can create deterministic structures by random chance. And
law is created by the designer. If God chose to do that with living systems,
then evolution can be viewed as evolution by LAW.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm