>Group
>
>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.)
>
>SJ>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.
>
>SJ>Interestingly I get support from an unexpected quarter.
>
Interestingly you find support where none exists.
>SJ>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.
>
>SJ>Agreed. Therefore, why use it, when a perfectly good *theistic* set of
>words (eg. create, make, form, etc) are available?
>
Loren said:
===================
"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."
===================
So, unless I grossly misunderstood Loren, it seems to me that he
agrees with my assessment "... for the average person "evolution"
carries more metaphysical baggage than the other words mentioned."
How is it then that you found support from what I said? When I
said "I would tend to agree ...", it was Loren I was tending
to agree with, not you.
Just so things are perfectly clear, I do not support what Steve
is saying in this thread in any way.
>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.
>
[...]
>
>SJ>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.
Perhaps you believed someone who told you that evolutionists
can't think of any evidence against their theory. Perhaps
you believed someone who told you that the naturalistic rulers
of science are very efficient at silencing any expression of
doubts about evolution.
But now you know these stories aren't true. Evolutionists do
express their doubts publicly. Its easy to find out about it.
All you have to do is look.
>SJ>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
And so we now have learned that it is not just YEC's who express
their doubts. Prominant evolutionists also express their doubts.
Whence cometh this propaganda of which you speak?
>
>SJ>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.
Again, Steve claims to know the heart of others and this time
specifically Loren in addition to "other TEs". Never mind what
Loren and others say, Steve knows the *real* reason. How does
he know the *real* reason? Perhaps he'll tell us.
[...]
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>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.
>
>SJ>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".
You have no way of knowing this. Yet you say its a fact. Its the
*truth*. More on this below.
>SJ>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.
>
>SJ>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:
fact, *truth*, now blindingly obvious.
>SJ>
>1. TE/ECs are "the cream of Christian scientists";
>
>2. they "have largely accomodated their thinking to scientific
>naturalism" and
>
How can you possibly know this Steve? Just recently you quoted
something I said a long time ago regarding my reasons for switching
postions. I stated very briefly four reasons:
=================================================
My main reasons for switching views were:
1) I learned the difference between the science of evolution and
evolutionism.
2) I found out that almost everything I knew about evolution was
wrong. Some of what I'm learning now makes sense to me.
3) I like the theology. Sorry, I don't mean to shock people ;-).
4) I think the actions of many creationists are doing great harm
to the church and I want to oppose those as best I am able.
There's probably more but this will do for now.
=====================================================
Funny thing Steve. I didn't list accomodating my thinking to
scientific naturalism. In fact I specifically mentioned in
(3) that "I like the theology". You seem able to see these
things more clearly than most. Tell me, oh wise one. Do I
not know my own heart?
:-(
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |