On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 16:55:39 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote:
DT>I've prepared a short piece on this conference, which I'm planning
>to send to a Christian monthly journal here in the UK. I'm looking
>for some peer review before I send it off - so I thought those on
>this list would be worth approaching. Feedback welcome!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>"MERE CREATION" CONFERENCE
DT>Over 150 scholars gathered at Biola University, Los Angeles on
>14-17 November 1996 with a goal which few in academic circles seem
>to share: to develop an approach to science which is free from
>naturalistic philosophy (the idea that nature is all there is).
Indeed. Johnson's point is that if "nature *is* all there is" then,
by definition, God is a figment of human imagination, and
Christianity is not true. Darwinism is the best theory of how we got
here, assuming that "nature is all there is". But Christianity
declares that "nature is" *not* "all there is". Therefore if
Christianity is true, then Darwinism may not be the *best* theory of
how we got here.
DT>There was a sense of urgency in the conference, because the
>message broadcast by most opinion-formers in science is that science
>cannot be done without a prior commitment to naturalism. What this
>rules out is any thought that the natural world exhibits design.
Clearly, despite all appearances to the contrary, if there is no
Designer, there can be no "design".
DT>The best-known British advocate for naturalism is Richard Dawkins.
>He has suggested the word "designoid" to be appropriate for living
>things (i.e. they appear designed, but they are actually the result
>of a mindless process known as Darwinian evolution.)
It is good to point out that that the modern scientific view is that
"Darwinian evolution" is "a mindless process". TEs who defend
"Darwinian evolution" are defending "a mindless process". If they
claim it is not "a mindless process" then it is not "Darwinian
evolution".
DT>Christians in science have only two options. One is to view
>evolution as a God-ordained natural process: one which he used to
>create all things. Since God ordains natural laws and controls
>chance, he is responsible for what results. However, few find this
>a convincing argument for design. Apart from reacting to the
>extraordinarily wasteful route chosen, we expect a creative designer
>to take things beyond natural law. Both the design concept and the
>fabrication process take things beyond law: materials are moulded
>and fashioned to do things they would not naturally do. In other
>words, an intelligent input is always required if we are to
>recognise design. This is the one thing that is never allowed in
>evolutionary accounts of origins.
Agreed. Such "design" would still exist at the cosmological level,
eg. that there is anything at all; that what exists is exquisitely
fine-tuned, etc. But given a personal, all-powerful, interventionist
God that Christianity proclaims, it would be surprising that such a
God would not go beyond his own natural laws, if only to make His
own stamp of design more clear (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:18-20, etc).
Theistic evolution, because of its committment to an "evolutionary
accounts of origins", must downplay design. This we have seen on
this Reflector, with TEs like Terry Gray and Glenn Morton attempting
to refute Behe.
DT>The other option for Christians is to say that the naturalists
>are wrong and that living things really are designed by God. They
>cannot be explained without reference to the intelligent input of a
>Designer. Natural law, by itself, will never bring about life. To
>say such a thing necessitates, of course, a rejection of Darwinian
>evolution as it is held within the academic world. This radical
>option is the one taken by those participating in the conference.
Agreed. This is "radical" only "within the academic world", because
the latter is dominated by a materialistic-naturalistic worldview,
which regards matter as all there is and natural causes the only
causes. Since there can be no "Designer" under such a worldview,
"Darwinian evolution" (or something like it) *must* be true by
definition, irrespective of the evidence.
Christians have no alternative but to "reject" a so-called `science'
based on this inherently non-theistic worldview:
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to
make it obedient to Christ." (2Cor 10:5)
DT>Focusing the debate on "Intelligent Design" issues is a strategy
>which has been led by Professor Phillip Johnson, author of "Darwin
>on Trial". The aim is to change the way the debate over origins
>proceeds. The issue is not "evolution vs creation science" but
>"naturalistic science vs theistic science".
Yes. Johnson wants to highlight the *real* issue over theistic and
naturalistic *ways of thinking*:
"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is
that the conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking. The
problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science,
but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists
employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually
observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a
step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in
the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as
evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian
scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done
is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material
processes can do all the work of biological creation because,
according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have
defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least
implausible-description of how biological creation could occur in the
absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may
not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is
profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is
inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers."
(Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin",
Christianity Today, October 24, 1994, p26)
DT>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.
To be true, "science...should it be open to" *all* "possibilities",
"theistic" and non-"theistic".
DT>What is needed, and what the conference set out to address, is a
>development of these ideas in a form that can stand up to the
>critical evaluation of the academic world. Scientists need a
>methodology for identifying design and for incorporating the
>concept harmoniously into explanations of origins. We need to be
>able to point to ways in which these ideas make a difference to
>scholarly work. We need to have a robust philosophical framework
>for science incorporating intelligent design. The general feeling
>was that the conference achieved substantial progress in these
>areas, making it a resounding success.
It is important to develop a science that incorporates theistic ways
of thinking. But whether this "can stand up to the critical
evaluation of the academic world" is unclear. Since "the academic
world" is dominated by a materialist-naturalist worldview, it may
just reject it out-of-hand as not "science". This is what Robert
Shapiro, did:
"Michael Behe has done a top notch job of explaining and illuminating
one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of complexity
that permeates all of life on this planet. Professor Behe selects an
answer that FALLS OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE: the original creation of life
by an intelligent designer. Many scientists, myself included, will
prefer to continue the search for an answer WITHIN SCIENCE.
Nonetheless, this book should be on the essential reading list of all
those who are interested in the question of where we came from, as it
presents the most thorough and clever presentation of the design
argument that I have seen." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free Press: New York, 1996,
back cover. My emphasis)
Still, as Christians our role is to be faithful, and leave the
results up to God:
"As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to
it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that
it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word
that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but
will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I
sent it." (Isa 55:10-11)
DT>A few specific examples of presentations follow. Professor
>Michael Behe gave a synopsis of his recent book "Darwin's Black
>Box", which demonstrates that the biological world has innumerable
>examples of irreducibly complex systems which defy Darwinian
>explanations of origins.
Strictly speaking, Behe only argues that the *micro-*"biological
world has innumerable examples of irreducibly complex systems which
defy Darwinian explanations of origins." This, if established, would
be enough to vindicate theism. But IMHO there are "innumerable
examples of irreducibly complex systems which defy Darwinian
explanations of origins" at the macro-"biological" level as well, but
Darwinists can always invent "just-so" stories to get around the
obstacle. The only difference is that at the micro-"biological"
level, even their ingenuity fails them:
"We have closely examined the blood clotting system in this chapter
and shown that it exhibits characteristics strongly suggestive of
intelligent design. It is not unique in this respect: virtually all
biochemical systems, large and small, exhibit coherent integration of
distinct parts to give a whole entity with a separate purpose. This
includes photosynthesis, cell replication, carbohydrate, protein, and
lipid metabolism, vision, the immune system, and numerous others.
Like a car engine, biological systems can only work after they have
been assembled by someone who knows what the final result will be."
(Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and People: The Central
Question of Biological Origins", Foundation for Thought and Ethics:
Richardson TX, Second Edition, 1993, p145)
DT>Professor Siegfried Scherer spoke about research into the concept
>of Basic Types in the biological world: evidences of distinct
>groupings of organisms that are genetically related within the Type
>but which appear to be genetically separate from other Types. This
>work provides empirical evidence of the discontinuities introduced
>by intelligent design activity by the Creator. Dr Jonathan Wells
>spoke of confirmatory evidence from developmental biology, that
>distinct differences between different types of organism are
>apparent from their earliest development. Dr Sigrid Hartwig-
>Scherer applied the Basic Type biology concept to hominid fossils,
>showing how sense can be made of the diverse collections of fossils
>- pointing to a coherent story of the intelligent design of mankind.
I am interested in this. Can you provide more details? I hope it is
not dependent on acceptance of YEC.
DT>Professor Phillip Johnson, whose writings, lectures and personal
>influence catalysed the conference, gave the final address. He
>spoke of the momentum that already exists: the conference
>proceedings will be published to make the papers available to a
>wider readership; further conferences will be organised; media
>opportunities are growing; etc. But everyone can contribute to the
>goals of the conference by being much more sensitive as to what
>constitutes "science". Science is NOT forcing everything into a
>naturalistic framework of "chance" or "necessity". We must be
>prepared to allow for the possibility that chance and necessity are
>inadequate to explain the real world. If practising science means
>seeking truth, then scientists will be open to the possibility of
>intelligent design and will not rule the concept out of bounds as
>inherently unscientific. Christians who claim to be interested in
>both truth and science should be giving a lead here. A culture
>change is needed about the scientific enterprise - and culture
>involves everyone who has any interest in science: teachers and
>students, parents and children, researchers and writers.
Great. This is the real 1st Century spirit! :-) Christians should
not accept their culture because "the whole world is under the
control of the evil one" (1 Jn 5:19). Christians must *challenge*
the world: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the
earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Mt 10:34); "If
the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you
belonged to the world, it would love you as its own." (Jn 15:18-19).
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------