On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 11:24:40 -0500 (EST), Loren Haarsma wrote:
LH>I really enjoyed what Steve Jones wrote about "mediate creation," and I
>agree with much of it.
Thanks Loren. I hope we can reach much agreement.
LH>But Steve's essay, and Jim's concurrence, on how the word
>"evolution" is tainted beyond redemption got me wondering. Why
>stop there? What other words are so tainted that we should stop
>fighting to redeem them from anti-theistic metaphysical baggage,
>and simply eschew their use?
This is a favourite tactic of debaters. Confuse the issue by
bringing in additional cases. For example, the Tobacco lobby
suggests we have to ban drinking as well if we want to ban smoking,
etc, etc. Their aim is to double the difficulty, so that in the
end, nothing is done.
There may indeed be other "words" that "are so tainted that we
should...simply eschew their use" but I and Jim are only discussing
*one* word, "evolution".
LH>How about "mechanics" and "law"? Too closely associated with
>Deism and Mechanistic Determinism.
>"Chance" has got to go, obviously.
>
>"Behavior" and "conditioning" were ruined by the Behaviorists.
>
>"Logic" and "evidence" are too closely associated with Logical
>Positivism.
>
>And "quantum mechanics" has got too much of that New Age/Mysticism
>stuff in it these days.
I have been impressed by Loren's fine mind and his eirenic spirit.
However I am a bit disappointed by the shallowness of his argument
here! :-) None of us creationists claim there is anything wrong
with "mechanics", "law", "Chance", "Behavior", "conditioning",
"Logic", "evidence" and "quantum mechanics".
Indeed, if "evolution" is the same kind of word as these, then why
do Christians who are evolutionists feel they have to prefix
"Theistic" to it or suffix "-ary Creation" after it?
Actually, Loren answers his own question. None of these words
need to be redeemed "from anti-theistic metaphysical baggage", but
"evolution" does.
On 09 Jan 97 13:28:29 EST, Jim Bell wrote:
JB>Enjoyed your flight of fancy on tainted words. But really, no
>word in our time--except perhaps "abortion"--has so much baggage
>attached to it. I mean, "Quantum Mechanics" was not the subject of
>a trial in 1925, or a propogandistic movie starring Spencer Tracy,
>or lawsuits by the ACLU.
[...]
Good point! I wonder *why* Loren is so eager to "redeem" that one
word *evolution* from what he frankly acknowledges is its
"anti-theistic metaphysical baggage". Why not *replace* it with a
word *creation* that has *no* "anti-theistic metaphysical baggage"?
Indeed, why "eschew" the "use" of *creation*? Why not try instead
to "redeem" *creation* from its current narrow young-Earth
creationist usage?
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 15:25:35 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
SC>From a different perspective, how about the way that that the
>word "humanism" has been ruined so that it is automatically
>associated with things atheistic, whereas, in reality, there is a
>grand tradition of Christian humanism.
I note that Steve in passing seems to accept that the word
`evolution' "has been has been ruined so that it is automatically
associated with things atheistic..."
Does there not come a point where Christian apologists should
acknowledge reality and give up on words (like `evolution' and
`humanism'), that have become so entrenched in the public mind as to
be inextricably linked with the position of their opponents, that
continued attempts to "redeem" it is just poor stewardship?
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:14:34 -0600, John E. Rylander wrote:
JR>Just a quick note from a lurker: I couldn't agree more with your
point, Loren.
>
>If one's goal is insularity and intellectual isolationism, then
>drop the word.
Why does using a Biblical word like "creation" necessarily mean that
one's goal is "insularity and intellectual isolationism"?
JR>If the goal is to engage others in discussion, and potentially
>change the scientific community's view...
I have not seen any evidence that using the word "evolution" with
"theistic" prefixed to it, or "-ary creation" suffixed after it, has
done *anything* to "change the scientific community's view".
And as for "engaging others in discussion", it is the *creationists*
like Phil Johnson who are doing just that. He has debated leading
naturalistic evolutionists like Gould, Ruse, Provine, Sarich,
Eldredge. Evolutionists have not shown they are not interested in
"discussions" with theistic evolutionists or evolutionary
creationists:
"Most theistic evolutionists do not challenge either the conclusions
of evolutionary biology or its naturalistic methodology, but argue
merely that evolution by natural processes is compatible with
theistic religion. To the extent that they go farther, and
postulate a supernatural directing force in evolution, they violate
the rules of methodological naturalism and are no more welcome in
scientific discussions than outright creationists. In either case,
what scientific topic is there to talk about?" (Johnson P.E.,
"Starting a Conversation about Evolution", A review of "The Battle
of the Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the
Creation-Evolution Debate" by Del Ratzsch)
JR>...then use the word precisely with an explicitly stated
>meaning, even if this means pointing out that the term can be very
>equivocal, particularly from a precise philosophical perspective.
>After all, "equivocal" isn't the same as "useless"; more like
>"dangerous".
I would be more than happy if TE/ECs used "the word" *evolution*
"precisely with an explicitly stated meaning". But that would expose
the oxymoronic nature of the conjunctions theistic-evolution and
evolutionary-creation, in today's usage. That is because the
scientific understanding meaning of the word "evolution" today is
that it is *undirected*:
"The modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is fundamentally
inconsistent with any meaningful theism -- with any meaningful God
who acts as creator of the world. Now, of course, this isn't
necessarily true of all theories of evolution, or of the concept of
evolution broadly construed, because a creator could make use of a
gradual, long-term process of making one thing out of another just
as well as any other process. So there's nothing about the word
"evolution" that rules out the creator. But the modern
neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, orthodox among today's
scientists, insists that evolution is an unplanned, undirected
process. It combines elements of chance and necessity or natural
law, a combination of random genetic changes or mutations, which
accumulate through natural selection. These are impersonal material
forces reflecting no preexisting intelligence and no guidance. As
the outcome of this process, human beings are essentially unplanned
acts of nature." (Johnson P.E. & Provine W.B., "Darwinism:
Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?", Exerpts of a debate between
William B. Provine and Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University,
April 30, 1994).
JR>But at least when talking with scientists or those laymen who are
>scientifically oriented, the alternative here to danger is
>unnecessary irrelevance.
It may be that to "scientists or those laymen who are scientifically
oriented", the word "creation" indeed conveys "irrelevance". That
is always the risk that Christian apologists face when confronting
those with a radically different world view, as did Paul in his
opening address to the Athenians:
"When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of
them sneered..." (Ac 17:32a)
But there will always be some (maybe a minority) who are interested
to hear something new:
"...but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject."
(Ac 17:32b).
TE/Ecs desire to evangelise their scientific colleagues is
praiseworthy. But if they compromise their core concepts, it
may be that their colleagues have in effect `evangelised' them! I
personally knew a missionary to tribal Australian aborigines (who
are animists), who unwittingly became a `Christian-animist'.
Likewise, theists who become too close to naturalistic ways of
thinking can unwittingly become `theistic naturalists':
"Darwinian scientists...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. That is why I think the appropriate
term for the accommodationist position is not "theistic evolution,"
but rather theistic naturalism." (Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting
`Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity Today, October 24,
1994, p26)
There is another point. Because the cream of Christian scientists
have largely accomodated their thinking to scientific naturalism and
have adopted TE/EC as a means of reaching their colleagues, they
have, in effect, abandoned the vast majority of their Christian
layman brothers to those other Christian scientists-the scientific
creationists.
Mediate creationism is a way out of the impasse for scientists who
are Christians, to: 1. win some of their scientific friends; 2.
give Christian scientific guidance to their laymen Christian
brothers; and 3. reconcile the moderate YECs.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------