>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?
SJ>This is a favourite tactic of debaters. Confuse the issue by
>bringing in additional cases.
Nope, my point is that they are all the *same* case. They are different
in degree, not in kind. The terms mechanics, law, chance, behavior,
conditioning, logic, evidence, and evolution all have useful technical
meanings in several branches of science. (In the case of evolution, in
astronomy and engineering as well as biology.) Also, each of these
terms has been loaded with metaphysical baggage by some people to
justify anti-theistic positions. The term "evolution" may have the
lion's share of such nonsense right now, but that just means we have to
work harder. If I read my history right, some of those other terms were
giving "evolution" a real run for the money in previous decades.
------
[massive quotage ignored and snipped. nothing I haven't responded to in
excruciating detail in the past, so what's the point of doing so again?]
Steve, in my experience, your use of quotations has negative
informational value. I stopped reading the lengthy quotations in your
posts a mere three months after I joined this list, because they almost
never said anything you hadn't already said in your own words. They are
also too long. A year ago I stopped reading your posts all together
unless they were directed at me (and sometimes even then) or introduced
a new topic such as your "mediate creation" post.
You don't need those quotes. You communicate better without them, and
they drive away readers. If you go "cold turkey" and promise not to use
any quotes for the next six months, you will seriously impress me (I
know how hard it is to change a writing habit) and I will go back to
reading your posts.
--------
>There is another point. Because the cream of Christian scientists
>have largely accomodated their thinking to scientific naturalism and
>have adopted TE/EC ....
This has got to stop. I wrote you about this privately a few months
ago, now I'll try again. Publicly attributing negative motives to one's
opponents is the ubiquitous staple of political discourse and an easy
rhetorical tactic; it is also wrong.
We have Christians here in the States who say, "I don't see how a
Christian can be a Republican. They have accomodated their thinking to
the greed prevalent in society." We also have Christians who say, "I
don't see how a Christian can be a Democrat. They have accomodated
their thinking to the narcissism prevalent in society." Such statements
drive a wedge between Christian brothers and sisters. They are worse
than useless.
Of course you should challenge TE/ECs to explain their beliefs from a
Christian perspective. You should critique their reasoning when they
present it, by all means. But do not claim to know their hearts better
than they do.
Loren Haarsma