On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 21:59:55 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>SJ>The God-of-the-gaps argument is really based on the implicit
>>assumption that naturalism is more likely to be true and theism
>>more likely to be false:
>>
>>"Theistic evolutionists' standard use of the phrase "God of the gaps"
>>to discourage consideration of nonnaturalistic possibilities, for
>>example, comes straight out of their implicit MN...The problem, very
>>briefly stated, is this: if employing MN is the only way to reach true
>>conclusions about the history of the universe, and if the attempt to
>>provide a naturalistic history of the universe has continually gone
>>from success to success, and if even theists concede that trying to do
>>science on theistic premises always leads nowhere or into error (the
>>embarrassing "God of the gaps"), then the likely explanation for this
>>state of affairs is that naturalism is true and theism is false."
>>(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p211)
BH>The more likely explanation is our inability to know the mind
>of God. The issues involved here were grapled with by theistic
>scientists before Darwin. Design was excluded from science due
>to the concerted efforts of many scientists, many of whom
>were theists and many of whom were creationists.
Disagree entirely. Exclusion of design is "tantamount to atheism"
as Darwin's defender, Harvard botanist and theistic evolutionist
Asa Gray conceded:
"..."The proposition that the things and events in nature were not
designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to
atheism....To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The
alternative is a designed Cosmos...If Mr. Darwin believes that the
events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold
around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes
that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused
and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is
atheistic." (Gray A., Atlantic Monthly, October 1860, in Noll M.A. &
Livingstone D.N. (eds), Hodge C. "What Is Darwinism?", 1874,
Baker Books: Grant Rapids MI, 1994 reprint, p156-157)
BH>The following quote from D'Alembert provodes a nice
>summary of thereasons:
>
>The laws of equilibrium and of motion are necessary truths.
This immediately is a false assumption from which all else follows. A
ncessary truth is something that *cannot* not be so (see Geisler N.L.,
"Christian Apologetics", 1976, p239). The Bible tells us that
everything created is contingent, ie. it *can* not be so, eg. it was not
so before the beginning and it will not be so in the end. D'Alembert
thus reveals himself as one who believes in some sense in the eternity
of physical laws and/or matter, ie. he is a materialist or dualist. He
was a rationalist sceptic who was hostile to Christianity, and is
certainly no theist role model. Here is what the encyclopaedia says
about him:
"Jean Le Rond d'Alembert, French mathematician, philosopher,
and writer, achieved fame as a mathematician and scientist before
acquiring a considerable reputation as a contributor to the famous
Encyclopedie and as one of the leading figures in the French
Enlightenment." (Grimsley R., "Alembert, Jean Le Rond d'",
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, Vol. 1, p464)
"D'Alembert's teachers at first hoped to train him for theology,
being perhaps encouraged by a commentary he wrote on St.
Paul's Letter to the Romans, but they inspired in him only a
lifelong aversion to the subject." (Grimsley, p464)
"Meanwhile, d'Alembert began an active social life and frequented
well-known salons, where he acquired a considerable reputation as a
witty conversationalist and mimic. Like his fellow Philosophes -those
thinkers, writers, and scientists who believed in the sovereignty of
reason and nature (as opposed to authority and revelation) and
rebelled against old dogmas and institutions-he turned to the
improvement of society. A rationalist thinker in the free-thinking
tradition, he opposed religion and stood for tolerance and free
discussion; in politics the Philosophes sought a liberal monarchy with
an "enlightened" king who would supplant the old aristocracy with a
new, intellectual aristocracy. Believing in man's need to rely on his
own powers, they promulgated a new social morality to replace
Christian ethics." (Grimsley, p464)
"Science, the only real source of knowledge, had to be popularized for
the benefit of the people, and it was in this tradition that he became
associated with the Encyclopedie about 1746." (Grimsley, p464)
"Although as a skeptic, d'Alembert willingly supported the
Philosophes' hostility to Christianity, he was too cautious to become
openly aggressive." (Grimsley, p465)
BH>...The nature of the Supreme Being is
>too well concealed for us to be able to know directly what
>is, or is not, in conformity with his wisdom. We can only
>discover the effect of his wisdom by the observation of the
>laws of nature, since mathematical reasoning has made the
>simplicity of these laws evident to us, and experiment has
>shown us their application and scope.
This is either agnosticism or Deism. I am surprised that you
think it OK.
[...]
BH>Richard Owen is an excellent example of the creationists
>who opposed the use of design in biological science.
>Owen even went so far as to use the argument from imperfection.
>Owen's point was very much the same as D'Alembert's. It is
>not that Owen believed organisms were not designed or that
>they were not created (he believed both), but that this was
>not a useful principle for doing science.
You should be careful in calling Owen a "creationist". He was
probably only a "creationist" in the Agassiz sense, ie. a
philosophical idealist.
>SJ>If that's the case, why be a theist?
BH>Jesus.
That's great but it contradicts what you posted from D'Alembert,
about "The nature of the Supreme Being" being "too well concealed
for us to be able to know directly what is, or is not, in conformity
with his wisdom." Which is it to be?
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------