On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:34:16 -0700, Terry M. Gray wrote:
TG>While I won't accuse anyone participating in this thread of this, I do know
>that Phil Johnson thinks this. Perhaps there are others.
>
>It seems that an underlying feeling in comments like
>
>"true naturalistic evolutionists hate IDTers as much as the hate TE's."
I invite you to substantiate your claim that: "Phil Johnson thinks
this", namely that "true naturalistic evolutionists *hate* IDTers as
much as the hate TE's." (emphasis mine)
All I can find that Phil says twice on this topic is that Darwinists
think that God-guided evolution is "a soft form of creationism":
"Perhaps the contradiction is hard to see [when it is stated at an
abstract level, so I will give a more concrete example. Persons who
advocate the compromise position called "theistic evolution" are in
my experience always vague about what they mean by "evolution." They
have good reason to be vague. As we have seen, Darwinian evolution
is by definition unguided and purposeless, and such evolution cannot
in any meaningful sense be theistic. For evolution to be genuinely
theistic it must be guided by God, whether this means that God
programmed the process in advance or stepped in from time to time to
give it a push in the right direction. To Darwinists evolution
guided by God is a soft form of creationism, which is to say it is
not evolution at all."(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. http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/wid.htm)
"According to the doctrines of orthodox Darwinism and Mendelian
genetics, the "improvements"* in this and all other Darwinian
scenarios come from gene mutations that are random in the sense that
they are not directed either by God or by the needs of the organism
(such as its wish or need to become a flying creature). This point
is important because if an unevolved intelligent or purposeful force
directed evolution, the blind watchmaker would not be blind and a
supernatural element would be introduced into the system.
"Evolution" in which the necessary mutations were directed by a
preexisting intelligence (which did not itself evolve
naturalistically) would be a soft form of creationism and not really
evolution at all, in the sense in which Dawkins and other leading
Darwinists use the term." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
1995, p79)
TG>is that theistic evolutionists are TE's not because they think
>that it is the best way of thinking about the relationship between
>faith and science on the issue of origins, but because TE's somehow
>want to appease naturalistic evolutionists with their acceptance of
>evolution.
This is too one-sided. No doubt TEs think that TE is "the best way
of thinking about the relationship between faith and science" but
this does not explain why TEs from the outset have been critical of
Phil Johnson. Johnson AFAIK started out being conciliatory to TEs
and they repaid the compliment by attacking him.
I have the first edition of Darwin on Trial, and Johnson only
mentions Theistic Evolution *once*, and mildly:
"The ASA leadership has generally embraced "compatibilism" (the
doctrine that science and religion do not conflict because they occupy
separate realms) and "theistic evolution." Theistic evolution is not
easy to define, but it involves making an effort to maintain that the
natural world is God-governed while avoiding disagreement with the
Darwinist establishment on scientific matters." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", Monarch: Crowborough UK, First Edition, 1991,
pp126-127)
Johnson mentions on his tapes how he was treated by TEs. including
one prominent TE (not yourself) saying publicly (at an ASA
convention I understand) that Johnson "has the mind of a medieval
peasant". In his writings, Johnson mentions with evident
surprise and disappointment the reception he received from TEs:
"My secular colleagues usually assume that a book which challenges
the central pillar of scientific naturalism must have been received
with wild enthusiasm in the Christian world. It is true that many
Christian readers are enthusiastic, but there are also many with
serious reservations. There is a very wide range of opinion among
Christians about evolution, ranging from "young-earth"
creation-scientists to liberal theologians who embrace naturalistic
evolution with enthusiasm. One group with which I have been
particularly engaged in discussion and debate consists of the
Christian professors of science and philosophy who attempt to
accommodate science and religion by embracing "theistic evolution." "
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, p166)
and:
"Ironically, while my critique of Darwinism and scientific
naturalism has gained a hearing in secular academic debates, it has
met with surprising resistance from theistic evolutionists in the
Christian academic world. That many Christian college and seminary
professors are ardent defenders of Darwinism may seem astonishing,
but it is true. There are many reasons for this, including the
powerful indoctrination aspiring professors receive in graduate
schools. Perhaps the most important factor is that the reigning
assumption among Christian intellectuals in recent years has been
that, given the futility of fighting a war with science, the best
hope for saving Christianity in modern culture is to show that
Christian theism can coexist with scientific knowledge, including
the theory of evolution. This assumption gave theistic
evolutionists an enormous stake in believing that what the rulers of
science tell us about evolution is true (and hence unbeatable), and
that it is religiously neutral (and hence acceptable)." (Johnson
P.E., "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity
Today, October 24, 1994, p26)
After these unprovoked attacks by TEs on Johnson, he quite reasonably
concluded that TEs were too strongly influenced by their naturalistic
scientific training and environment, which caused them to perceive
him as a enemy of science. The opening paragraph of Howard Van
Till's attack on Johnson in First Things reinforces that Johnson's
conclusion was true:
"Although the rhetoric Phillip E. Johnson employs in his article
"Creator or Blind Watchmaker?" (FT, January 1993) 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 contemporary scientific theorizing, thereby
ensuring that the gulf between the academy and the sanctuary will
only grow wider." (Van Till H.J., in Van Till H.J. & Johnson P.E.,
"God and Evolution: An Exchange", First Things, 34, June/July 1993,
pp32-41. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
Here Van Till implies that Johnson is essentially a scientific
creationist, and that he will only help ensure that "the gulf between
the academy and the sanctuary will only grow wider."
Until TEs show a bit more support of their creationist brothers in
Christ in general, and Phil Johnson in particular, creationists like
me will remain unconvinced by TEs assurances that they do not "want
to appease naturalistic evolutionists with their acceptance of
evolution." I do not in any way imply that TEs are not completely
sincere in this.
A wise Politics professor once told me: "Don't take any notice what
people say - it's what they *do* that counts". And what TEs *do* is
defend evolution to the hilt and attack all creationists who dare to
criticise evolution.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------