On Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:23:53 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>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".
No comment? No doubt because it is unanswerable!
>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.
BH>Interestingly you find support where none exists.
Is that so? If "for the average person "evolution" carries more
metaphysical baggage than the other words mentioned" then that is
"support" for my position, whether Brian intends it or not.
>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?
BH>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."
If Loren indeed said that, then that is what I am saying too.
BH>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.
Well, since it is what I also said, then Brian is also agreeing with
me. I am quite happy if both Loren, Brian and I all agree that
"for the average person `evolution' carries more metaphysical
baggage than the other words mentioned."
BH>Just so things are perfectly clear, I do not support what Steve
>is saying in this thread in any way.
See above. I take what Brian says as great "support"!
[...]
>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 believed that evolution was probably true, being the
>means that God used to create....One day I idly chose an echo
>called Creation vs Evolution...I couldn't believe my eyes. I
>didn't realise that there *were* any doubts about evolution.
BH>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.
No. I just unthinkingly absorbed the constant propaganda for
"evolution" that the ordinary man in the street is subjected too.
Now I am sensitised to it I hear it all the time. Hardly a day
goes by that I don't hear on the radio, or see in the newspapers and
on the TV, that such and such proves "evolution".
BH>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.
Yes - "look" in obscure scientific journals or specialist books!
That might be easy for a university Professor like Brian, but it is
hardly a realistic option for a layman. That is one good thing
about the scientific creationists - they do marshall the
quotes where "Evolutionists do express their doubts publicly', so
that laymen can access them easily.
>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
BH>And so we now have learned that it is not just YEC's who express
>their doubts.
I nowhere said that anything about "YEC's who express their doubts".
BH> Prominant evolutionists also express their doubts. Whence
>cometh this propaganda of which you speak?
In the media - nearly every day. Just tonight there was something
about it being established beyond doubt that birds "evolved" from
dinosaurs. The facts is that palaeontologists are divided over the
question of what birds "evolved" from:
"Take your pick Any final judgment on the matter is based on
personal preference for particular idea or theory. Several groups
of workers have pointed out problems with Ostrom's views concerning
the closeness of the relationship between dinosaurs and birds. Fine
points in the anatomy of the ear in birds and crocodiles have been
put forward as persuasive evidence that the ancestry of birds has to
be put back into the Triassic - supporting the views of Alick
Walker. Yet others favour an archosaur ancestry of birds because of
fine differences seen in the structure of the shoulder, wrist and
pelvis." (Norman D., "Dinosaur!", 1991, p199)
>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...saying that: "the synthetic theory..."
>(ie. Neo-Darwinism) "...as a general proposition, is effectively
>dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy" (Gould, 1980)
>I sat up an took notice.
BH>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.
BH>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.
Brian's attempt to sidetrack the debate into another channel where I
have to defend his (and Loren's) imaginary claim that I can read
minds and hearts. One does not have to "know the heart..TEs" to
make this rather elementary deduction:
1. "since they" (ie TEs) "believe that evolution is true"
therefore "they" (ie TEs) "believe that":
2. "the posting of arguments against evolution must, in the long
run, be counterproductive to the best interests of Christianity".
If Brian disagrees with either of those two self-evident
propositions, then I invite him to say which one.
[...]
>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".
BH>You have no way of knowing this. Yet you say its a fact. Its the
>*truth*. More on this below.
Of course I do not "know" it in an absolute sense. Yet everything
points to it.
>SJ>They spend their efforts fruitlessly trying to redeem the
>*secular* word "evolution" instead of the much easier and more
f>ruitful task of trying to enrich the *Biblical* word "creation".
>LH>...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.
BH>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:
BH>fact, *truth*, now blindingly obvious.
More word-games from Brian? I use the words: "fact", 'truth" and
'blindingly obvious" in the way that human beings use them all
the time - on the balance of probabilities of what they see and
hear - not in an absolutist sense. Besides, these words say
*nothing* about "TE/ECs..hearts". This is just the usual
smokescreen that I have come to expect from TEs.
>SJ>1. TE/ECs are "the cream of Christian scientists";
>2. they "have largely accomodated their thinking to scientific
>naturalism" and
BH>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:
[...]
BH>3) I like the theology. Sorry, I don't mean to shock people ;-).
[...]
BH>Funny thing Steve. I didn't list accomodating my thinking to
>scientific naturalism.
Brian didn't have to. It is evident in his overt hostility to
those like me who oppose "scientific naturalism'.
BH>In fact I specifically mentioned in (3) that "I like the
>theology".
Yes. I left that in. I thought it highly significant. Especially
the bit "Sorry, I don't mean to shock people ;-)"
BH>You seem able to see these things more clearly than most. Tell
>me, oh wise one. Do I not know my own heart?
This from the man who claimed to know that I was "abusing the
group"!
I made no claim "see these things more clearly than most" or to
"know" Brian's "heart". I don't need to - Brian's angry
anti-creationist posts speak for themselves.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------