On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:49:19 -0600, Russell T. Cannon wrote:
[continued]
RC>The problem here is that something else that I had said did not
>make it through to Pim. The above statement of mine was actually
>part of a sentence that, taken completely, answers Pim's above
>point. The following is the complete statement which I supply for
>clarification:
>
>I do not believe in evolution, I believe in God; but I do
>believe that God used both natural and extra-natural mechanisms
>that taken as a whole are what some interpret as natural
>evolution and others interpret as super-natural creation.
>
>Steve and I then exchanged ideas on "core beliefs" and "human
>objectivity".
>
>In this exchange, among other things, I had said...
>
>In all my studies, however, I have never found anything that
>posed a serious challenge to my core beliefs.
>To which Steve replied...
SJ>Same here. But I think we should not downplay the "serious
>challenge" to our "core beliefs" that evolutionism poses. Where the
>Church has allowed its doctrines to be "Finlandised" by evolutionist
>beliefs, it has become weaker. Evolutionist ideas are probably the
>greatest threat that the Church faces, since they purport to render
>superfluous the need for a supernatural Creator:"
RC>Then Pim replied...
PM>And this shows a severe lack in faith in your creator Steve.
>To suggest that he could not have used evolution.
I find it ironic that Pim (who presumably has *no* "faith" in God)
lectures me a committed Christian for over 30 years for my alleged
"severe lack in faith" in my Creator!
I did not say that God "could not have used evolution" (in fact I do
believe that God used natural processes in creating) that could be
called evolution. But then if God used natural processes, it would
not be "evolution", but mediate creation. Darwinist `blind
watchmaker' macroevolution is a theory that claims that undirected
materialistic natural processes were adequate to `create' everything
without the need for a Creator:
"There is a popular television game show called "Jeopardy," in which
the usual order of things is reversed. Instead of being asked a
question to which they must supply the answer, the contestants are
given the answer and asked to provide the appropriate question. This
format suggests an insight that is applicable to law, to science, and
indeed to just about everything. The important thing is not
necessarily to know all the answers, but rather to know what question
is being asked.. We are now in a position to answer the question
with which this lecture began. What is Darwinism?...Darwinism is the
answer to a specific question that grows out of philosophical
naturalism. To return to the game of "Jeopardy" with which we
started, let us say that Darwinism is the answer. What, then, is the
question? The question is: "How must creation have occurred if we
assume that God had nothing to do with it?" (Johnson P.E., "What is
Darwinism?", Symposium at Hillsdale College, in November 1992, Bauman
ed., "Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology",
Hillsdale College Press: Hillsdale, 1993)
PM>Furthermore your statement that evolution requires no god is also
>untrue.
I don't recall saying that "evolution requires no god". My point is
that if there is a God directing "evolution", then it is no longer
"evolution" but mediate creation. Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker'
"evolution" says that the idea of God is superfluous since random
mutation and cumulative natural selection is all that is needed to
develop life from molecules to man:
"We cannot disprove beliefs like these, especially if it is assumed
that God took care that his interventions always closely mimicked
what would be expected from evolution by natural selection. All that
we can say about such beliefs is, firstly, that they are superfluous
and, secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we
want to explain, namely organized complexity. The one thing that
makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized
complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity." (Dawkins R., "The
Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p316)
PM>Many christians have found a way to deal happily with both.
This contradicts Pim's earlier claim (couched as a question) that
"christians refuse to believe in evolution" because it is "beyond
their faith that god could have 'created' us through these
naturalistic means". I have already pointed out that "Many
Christians have found a way to deal happily with both". Indeed, on
this very Reflector I have been debating for two years almost daily
with Christians who not only "deal happily" with evolution, they are
positively enthusiastic about it!
RC>I do not see the lack of faith that Pim sees. I have been
>Christian for many years, and understanding the principles of faith
>in all of its forms as I do, I do not think Steve's statement
>represents a weakness in his Christian faith. The nature of
>Christian faith is much more complicated than a simple belief in God
>and the things that He has said and done. It does start there, but
>in time, it matures into something more complex and profound.
If I lacked "faith" I wouldn't still be here after two years debating
almost daily with atheists and TEs! It takes no "faith" to believe
that evolution was the means God used. I believed that for about 20
years of my Christian life because it was the soft option. What takes
real "faith" is being prepared to lay one's deepest held beliefs on
the table and defend them against all comers. That I have done for
over two years and I am now more convinced I am on the right track
and the atheists and TEs are on the wrong track.
RC>Morover, I would tend to agree with Steve. Evolution is not
>proved (nor disproved), but in our hearts--by the relationship we
>experience with Him--God is proved. We conform to that and all of
>our faith derives from that experience. We can never believe in
>evolution the same way that we believe in God.
Agreed. I know God first by an unexpected personal encounter with
Him when I was not really seeking Him. I meet with God [nearly]
every morning in prayer and Bible study and He answers my prayers and
occasionally speaks to me in a quite unmistakable way.
But I am a sceptic by nature (doubting Thomas is my patron saint!)
and I could not believe in Christianity if the evidence was against
it. I would have to conclude (despite my personally knowing God)
that it was all a magnificent delusion. So I am always willing to
test what I believe against the evidence. This, far from weakening
my faith, it has made it stronger!
RC>This gets me back to the statement I made before, "I do not
>believe in evolution, I believe in God." This statement has less to
>do with what ideas I think are true as it has to do with the
>relationship I experience with God. I may one day be utterly
>convinced that Darwinian evolution was the mechanism that led to the
>incredible bio-diversity of earth, but I will never believe *in* it
>the same way I believe in God. Believing something to be true is
>not the same as believing *in* it. There is only one thing (or more
>correctly, Person) I could believe in--that is God--all other ideas
>I hold to be true are secondary.
I probably agree with this in principle, but I would have a problem
if it was "Darwinian evolution" that "was the mechanism that led to
the incredible bio-diversity of earth". While God could use any
method He liked, I would find it difficult to accept that He used a
method that atheists believe to be the best evidence that God is not
needed. Romans 1 tells me that atheists are "without excuse", yet
creation by `blind watchmaker' evolution would give atheists plenty
of excuses! Since God *could* create any way He liked, He would be
more likely to create in such a way that would leave atheist "without
excuse", yet did not compel belief. I believe He has indeed done
that by: a) using natural processes; and yet b) ensuring that there
is no viable mechanism of fully naturalistic macroevolution.
RC>Steve quoted the following...
SJ>"In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either
>need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it
>evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it,
>including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body.
>So did religion...." (Huxley J., in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, pp152-153)
RC>And Pim replied again...
PM>And why do you believe that god could not have achieved his
>creation through evolution?
See above. I find it fascinating how non-theists press on my
strongly their idea that a (to them) imaginary "god could...have
achieved his creation through evolution". The point is that if God
is admitted into the picture any real way, then Darwinist
macro-evolution would be even more unprovable than it now is:
"If creation is admitted as a serious possibility, Darwinism cannot
win, and if it is excluded a priori Darwinism cannot lose." (Johnson
P.E. "Evolution as Dogma", 1990, p8)
PM>Any other view seems to place you in the unenviable position of
>having to disbelieve evolution.
Again the quasi-religious language used of this supposedly scientific
theory! I don't *have to* "disbelieve evolution" - I don't believe it
because the evidence is just not there! As Dr Gareth Nelson,
Chairman and Curator Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology of the
American Museum of Natural History in New York, admits, the evdience
for evolution "is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute
scale":
"Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant
thereto. He is basically correct that evidence, or proof, of
origins-of the universe, of life, of all of the major groups of life,
of all of the minor groups of life, indeed of all of the species-is
weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always
was and will always be...One might just as well attempt to prove
stability by offering as evidence a pyramid balanced on its apex. A
point-an origin-is where the evidence, like stability, disappears"
(Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. I, 1991,
pp.xii-xiii)
And why is it an "unenviable position" to "disbelieve evolution"? I
am in the *enviable* position of having a theory (mediate creation)
that better fits the facts!
PM>Perhaps are you not ignoring what god is trying to show you
>through evidence and fact?
Indeed, it is precisely because I am *not* "ignoring what God is
trying to show" me "through evidence and fact" that I have do not
believe in `blind watchmaker' macroevolution.
PM>Perhaps by denying evolution you are denying your god?
Who is Pim trying to kid? According to him, my God is a figment of
my imagination! How can there be any harm in "denying" what [to him]
is unreal?
RC>As evidence for evolution stands right now, our skepticism is just
>as warranted as your apparent skepticism of the Bible.
Indeed, the Bible has stood up to scepticism quite well. It has
been disected line-by-line and word-by-word, and yet has emerged
with an enhanced reputation for reliability. If evolutionary
scholars had been half as sceptical of evolution as Christian
scholars had been of the Bible, there would be very little of
evolution left. What Conklin wrote in 1943 is still relevant -
evolution has been strangely exempt from the severe methodological
criticism that applies in every other science:
"The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by
biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious
devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle.
This is probably the reason why severe methodological criticism
employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to
bear on evolutionary speculation." (Conklin E., "Man Real and
Ideal", 1943, p147, Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited",
1991, Vol. II, p75)
RC>I am utterly unbiased about the question of whether natural
>mechanisms were used--I am accused of heresy from time the time by
>my Christian brothers when I assert that they were.
This is an unfortunate overreaction by Christians. The Bible
continually teaches that God is uses natural mechanisms in the
achievement of His purposes:
"...your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil
and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous"
(Mt 5:45)
RC>But as a Christian, I must also assert that super-natural
>mechanisms were used as well. It is an undeniable fact of the
>scriptures that some super-natural activity occurred. We cannot
>always say what and when, but we can say unequivocally that they
>did. As Chrisitans, we can accept that some things occurred
>naturally, but the scriptures clearly assert that there was some
>super-natural mechanism at work as well.
Agreed. Given an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural Creator, who in
human history has shown He is ready, willing and able to both use
natural processes and to intervene in them when it suits Him, there
is no good reason for the theist to deny the possibility that God may
have intervened at strategic points in the history of life,
especially where at the key junctions: origin of the universe,
origin of first life, origin of life's higher taxa; plausiblle
naturalistic explanations are lacking.
RC>Darwinian evolution stands unproved in the truest scientific sense
>because all it has (or indeed can) give us is theories of relationships
>between species and how changes may have occurred from one to another.
>It can never actually reproduce an instance of Darwinian evolution in
>the laboratory. In this way, Darwinian evolution and intelligent design
>are on equal footing.
Yes. Both naturalistic evolution and supernatural creation are
impossible to verify empirically, as co-founder of Neo-Darwinism,
Theodosius Dobzhansky pointed out:
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The
applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the
time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human
experimenter" (Dobzhansky T., American Scientist, vol. 45, December
1957, p388, in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994,
pp277-278)
RC>Incidentally, should a scientist ever claim to have evolved a
>lifeform in the laboratory--or to have developed a new one through
>abiogenesis--he or she would never be able to discount the role of the
>creator (him or her in this case). To *prove* evolution in this way is
>only to demonstrate that natural mechanisms could have taken that path;
>but because the scientist had used artifical means to achieve his or her
>result, the scientist has also--perhaps unwittingly--demonstrated that
>this could also have been the path of intelligent design.
I would put it much stronger than that. *All* cases where a human
intelligent designer intervenes in an "abiogenesis" experiment,
he/she has forfeited the claim that it is truly abiogenesis. It is
in reality an analog of *creation* not evolution:
"The scientific materialists are bending all their efforts to
demonstrate that, if a reaction leading up to life can take place
now, in laboratory reaction vessels, without supernatural aid, then
proof positive has been effectively delivered that no supernatural
agency was needed to produce life at the beginning, at
archebiopoesis. Thus any synthetic, laboratory production of life in
the laboratory, under what are presumed to be conditions resembling
those on the earth when life arose for the first time, is heralded in
many circles as driving the last nail in God's and the
supernaturalist's coffins. Who needs God and the supernaturalist
position if life on the earth can be effectively accounted for
without either? Before accepting this commonly assumed position let
us consider the following: Is it not remarkable that this view is
not generally recognized for what it is-an absolute contradiction?
For all the efforts of the scientific naturalists to prove their
point by the above mentioned method only serve, in fact, to verify
the correctness of the supernaturalist position. For, is it not true
that the scientific materialists are, in their experiment, applying
intelligence and thought to the ordering of matter? Under the
influence of intelligence they are hoping to produce living matter
from its nonliving base. This is precisely the supernaturalist point
of view. For the supernaturalists hold that intelligence brooded
over nonliving matter, the dust of the earth,rmative interference of the investigator is
ignored, the
illusion of prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would predict
that this practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery
of life's origin." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The
Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, p185)
RC>A special note about style. I think many people continue to
>capitalize proper names of deities out of respect for other people's
>sincerely held views even when they do not believe in them. This
>isn't to say that every noun or pronoun that refers to a deity needs
>to capitalized (for example, Creator vs. creator, or His vs. his),
>but proper names for all deities Christian or otherwise should
>always be capitalized. Not only is this an expression of respect
>for people, it is also proper grammer.
Agreed. When atheists put God in lower case, apart from what it
tells me about their manners, it leads me to suspect that they hope
that by putting the word "God" in lower case, that somehow it might
make Him less real! If they really believed in their heart of hearts
there was no God, they would have no problem in humouring us and call
Him God, as we do.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------