On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 18:18:28 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>SJ>The key words are "indubitably true". Johnson (and I for that matter)
>>believe that God COULD have worked "through a natural evolutionary
>>process" but he (and I) do not believe that He MUST have.
>>
>>That is the main difference between Johnson's (and my) Theistic Realist
>>position and Glenn's Theistic Naturalist position.
GM>For someone who believes that God COULD have worked through
>evolution, you sure spend a lot of time FIGHTING evolution.
Well first of all, there is nothing wrong with "FIGHTING evolution". If
evolution is just a scientific theory, it is perfectly OK to criticise it. OTOH
if it is an article of `religious' faith, then from that perspective it is
inherently wrong, even wicked and evil, not to believe in evolution:
"When he contemplates the perfidy of those who refuse to believe,
Dawkins can scarcely restrain his fury. `It is absolutely safe to say that, if
you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is
ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).'"
(Dawkins R., Review of Johanson D. & Edey M., "Blueprints," New York
Times, in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p9).
Second, I said that "God COULD have worked through evolution" (ie.
fully natural processes) not that God DID work through evolution. The
evidence (when not viewed through naturalistic philosophical spectacles)
does not support that position that God did (at least at all levels) work
through known natural processes.
Third, Glenn *still* misses the point. What Johnson (and I) am "fighting" is
not "evolution" but the naturalistic *ways of thinking* that assumes
apriori* that fully naturalistic "evolution" is the only option:
"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the
conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking. The problem is not
just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the
naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive
those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection
creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental
change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could
readily be interpreted as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to
create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What
they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless
material processes can do all the work of biological creation because,
according to their philosophy, nothing else was available." (Johnson P.E.,
"Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin," Christianity Today, Vol. 38,
No. 12, October 24, 1994, p26).
GM>How do you know you aren't kicking against the goads?
This is *very* revealing. In Acts 26:14 Paul recounts how the risen Jesus
appeared to him and said "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard
for you to kick against the goads." Glenn here uses the same terms in
respect of my "fighting evolution" with Paul's persecuting of Jesus. It is
hard not to conclude that for Glenn, "evolution" is much, much more than
just a scientfic theory!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------