Okay, okay. I know that this is what Phil says. I find plenty of
footnotes, qualifiers, etc. that formally allow for a TE/EC perspective.
Why then does accuse us TE/EC types of being "theistic naturalists" (see
Glenn's well documented post from yesterday) when we accept the
evolutionary account in the context of theism?
Burgy, you can ask Phil if you want, but we already know the answer. Phil
(along with Al Plantinga) thinks that evolution is plausible as a
scientific explanation ONLY when you categorically rule out God, i.e. that
which the scientific materialist do. He does not think that evolution is a
plausible scientific explanation (i.e. the evidence is not there to support
the claims) if you don't limit yourself to materialism or naturalism AND he
cannot believe that some of us do. The conclusion that he draws is that we
are not really thinking like theists but more like naturalists.
Now if he denies that this is how he think about these things, then he has
a lot of back-peddling to do, because he has repeatedly criticized many of
us for our accomodation in order to stay respectable, our bing duped by our
graduate educations, etc.
In my review of Darwin on Trial, I wondered why Phil didn't consult with
more of us whose only option isn't naturalism and asked us what we thought
of the evidence. In later writings he attacks the TE/EC position as more
naturalism-like than theistic and is amazed at the resistance to some of
his views in the ASA and at Christian colleges. My conclusion is that the
TE/EC position would take the wind out of the ID project considerably.
They have said as much to me when I have discussed with them the idea that
everything is designed from a theistic point of view. They do not want to
talk about design in those terms. I believe that there is a deep
apologetic agenda here. In other words, Phil accepts the basic argument of
the naturalist that if evolution is true then theism must be false--so part
of a theistic proof is a proof that the naturalistic explanation
(evolution, according the PJ) is false.
TG
>This was the question:
>
>Q: I have a question for Phil Johnson which others on the list have also
>asked:
>
> How can you categorically rule out the possibility of theistic
>evolution, i.e. the idea that God can direct outcomes non-mechanically in
>accordance with His will, but in a way that looks like random evolution to
>us?
>
>This was Phil's answer:
>
>"I don't "categorically rule out" anything; it's the scientific
>materialists who do that, by insisting that science is by definition
>committed to materialism or naturalism. I've explained this repeatedly in
>two books and in numerous articles, which are available at:
>http://www.arn.org/arn"
>
>Burgy
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*
A special message for Macintosh naysayers:
http://www.macworld.com/pages/july.96/Column.2204.html