On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:45:40 -0500 (EST), Loren Haarsma wrote:
[...]
>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.
LH>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.)
No doubt once "evolution", carefully defined and used, could once
have had a distinct scientific meaning. But these days it has so
many meanings (including mainly non-theistic ones), that it is
indeed "tainted beyond redemption". Ask a man in the street, "Do
you believe in God?" and you are likely to get the reply, "No, I
believe in evolution".
LH>Also, each of these terms has been loaded with metaphysical
>baggage by some people to justify anti-theistic positions.
Interestingly I get support from an unexpected quarter.
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:03:37 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
BH>I would tend to agree that for the average person "evolution"
>carries more metaphysical baggage than the other words mentioned.
Agreed. Therefore, why use it, when a perfectly good *theistic* set of
words (eg. create, make, form, etc) are available?
LH>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.
But *why* does Loren believe "we have to work harder" to save
"evolution"? "Evolution" is just a word - there are better ones
(like "creation") that theists can use. TEs should face reality -
they will *never* be able to undo the "taint" to the word
"evolution" has accumulated now.
[...]
LH>[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?]
There were only *three* quotes in the message:
(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).
(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)
(Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of
Darwin", Christianity Today, October 24, 1994, p26)
and neither of them were "massive". The longest was 19 lines
long and the smallest only 11 (including the reference).
In any event, even if Loren has "responded to in excruciating detail
in the past", there are new Reflectorites coming along all the time
who wouldn't have seen Loren's replies. Like Rich Knopp:
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997 11:36:17 -0600 (CST), Rich Knopp wrote:
RK>I would go on record as saying that, at least for me, Steve's
>quotations are helpful and appropriate. One of the benefits of such
>a list is to be put in touch with important resources and statements
>in the literature that are potentially worth checking out further.
>If Steve's quotations say the same thing that he says in different
>words, I regard that as supportive, and not just redundant,
>material. I wish that more posters would help acquaint others with
>the literature more and include points which show some documentation
>for support. Whether these quotations are really accurate and
>fairly represent the author is something that we should feel
>obligated to determine by research. But at least it provides a
>specific place to start.
Thanks to Rich and other lurkers who send me posts saying they
benefit from my quotes. My personal testimony was that for 25 years
I was somewhere between a progressive creationist and a theistic
evolutionist. I believed that evolution was probably true, being the
means that God used to create. When I moved to the State capital
Perth, after 14 years in the country, I took advantage of
cheaper phone rates and dialed up fidonet bulletin boards. One day I
idly chose an echo called Creation vs Evolution. There was an old
YEC called Laurie, who was posting quotes by leading evolutionists
voicing doubts about aspects of evolution. I couldn't believe my
eyes. I didn't realise that there *were* any doubts about evolution.
The ubiquitous message of our culture is that evolution is a fact,
and the only people who doubt it are the young-Earth creationists.
So pervasive is this propaganda that almost everybody believes it
without really thinking about it
If Laurie had posted his own words without quotes, I wouldn't have
given them a second glance. But because he quoted people
like *Stephen Jay Gould-Professor of Geology and Paleontology at
Harvard* saying that:
"the synthetic theory..." (ie. Neo-Darwinism) "...as a general
proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as
textbook orthodoxy" (Gould S.J., "Is a new and general theory of
evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980,
p120)
I sat up an took notice.
The *real* reason why Loren (and other TEs) don't like my quotes is
that since they believe that evolution is true, the posting of
arguments against evolution must, in the long run, be
counterproductive to the best interests of Christianity. Johnson
quotes TE/EC Howard Van Till's response to one of his articles
as being primarily concerned that "the gulf between the academy and
the sanctuary will only grow wider":
"Although the rhetoric Phillip E. Johnson employs in his article
"Creator or Blind Watchmaker" differs in some details from that of
the "scientific creationists" of North American Christian
fundamentalism, the effect of his pronouncements is the same. That
is, it perpetuates the association of Christian belief with the
rejection of scientific theorizing, thereby ensuring that the gulf
between the academy and the sanctuary will only grow wlder."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p216)
But I do not share Loren's basic belief that evolution is true. I
believe that *creation* (ie. mediate creation) is true, and
evolution is the best non-theistic approximation. Evolution only
looks true *superficially*. The more one digs past the rhetoric, one
sees that it is a counterfeit. This is why there have always been
eminent evolutionists (eg. Wallace, Bateson, Goldschmidt, Grasse,
Patterson, Gould, and arguably even the Darwin), who in their later
years, as they learnt more about evolution, dissented from it and
become `agnostics'. If evolution was really true, the more one
learned about it the more one would become convinced of its truth. A
counterfeit might be 99% of the real thing, but it is that 1% that
makes it a fake. Evolution might be 99% true (it isn't even that),
but its not 100% true. What's 100% true is *creation* (ie. mediate
creation). Mediate creation is the substance and evolution is only a
pale secular shadow.
Therefore I will continue to post my quotes as long as I can benefit
even *one* lurker like Rich. I really value their support and I have
long since given up looking to TEs for approval.
LH>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
Which sort of contradicts Loren's earlier claim that he has
"responded to in excruciating detail" to my quotes "in the past". If
he hasn't even *read* my "lengthy quotations" since *June 1995* (I
have messages from Loren dated March 1995), then how can he have
"responded to" them *at all*, let alone "in excruciating detail"?
LH>because they almost never said anything you hadn't already said
>in your own words.
This is interesting. Steve Clark says I just "parrot' quotes
(implying that they are not my own words), but Loren says that the
my quotes "almost never said anything" that I "hadn't already said
in" my "own words."
LH>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.
I don't mind if "Loren" doesn't read my posts. I post to the
"Group" these days. In fact, if he doesn't read my posts, what is
his problem with how long they are?
If Loren did read my posts he would know that I am going to
answer more frequently and only concentrate on those messages
that have my name in them. So my posts should get shorter.
LH>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.
I am not interested in "impressing" Loren or anyone else. If Loren
or anyone else doesn't like my posts, I suggest they set a filter on
their email package that automatically deletes any post from
"sejones@ibm.net". Then effectively I won't exist for them - they
wouldn't even know that was still on the Reflector. This has always
been my position, as the following message as far back as *1995*
shows:
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 95 23:00:08 EST
From: sjones@iinet.net.au (Stephen Jones)
To: "Glenn Morton@-Evolution" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: human explosion
[...]
If Reflectorites think my messages are too old then I suggest they
simply consign them to the bit bucket! :-)
[...]
-------------------------------------------------------
SJ>There is another point. Because the cream of Christian
>scientists have largely accomodated their thinking to scientific
>naturalism and have adopted TE/EC ....
LH>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.
Its not "wrong" if it's the *truth*. The fact is that "the cream of
Christian scientists" *are* "TE/EC"s and they *have* "largely
accomodated their thinking to scientific naturalism" and that *is*
why they have "adopted TE/EC". They spend their efforts fruitlessly
trying to redeem the *secular* word "evolution" instead of the much
easier and more fruitful task of trying to enrich the *Biblical* word
"creation".
LH>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.
I make no claim about *politics*, nor did I say anything about
"TE/EC" not being "Christians". This is just an attempt to muddy the
waters.
LH>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.
I made no claim about "TE/ECs..hearts" (mind you TE/ECs say plenty
about mine). I merely pointed out the blindingly obvious, that
because:
1. TE/ECs are "the cream of Christian scientists";
2. they "have largely accomodated their thinking to scientific
naturalism" and
3. "have adopted TE/EC as a means of reaching their colleagues";
therefore
4. "they have, in effect, abandoned the vast majority of their
Christian layman brothers to those other Christian scientists-the
scientific creationists."
If Loren has any dispute with any of the above points, perhaps he
can say which ones are false.
BTW, Loren ignores what I also added immediately afterward:
"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."
Perhaps Loren can say what exactly *is* TE/EC's strategy to
"reconcile the moderate YECs"? It will never do it with a position
that has "evolution" in its name. If they ignore this problem, they
just prove my point 4. above.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------