On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:22:17 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>Exactly *how* has it been "refuted" and *who* was it that "refuted"
>it? Just your asserting it does not make it so!
PM>I am glad that you realize your errors. Now back to the Mediterranean
<g>
Eh???
>JR>For those not oblivious to finer points: no Christian in the discussion,
>>so far as I know anyway, believes that God -had- to use evolution.
>SJ>On the contrary, *the whole thrust* of Glenn's posts is that "God -
>had- to use evolution". He *automatically* assumes evolution and
>*never* even seriously considers supernatural creation as an option.
>What's more, Glenn attacks relentlessly and destructively any Christian
>apologist like Johnson or Ross who proposes *any* form of supernatural
>creation.
PM>If God used evolution, would that not be supernatural creation as
well?
"If God used evolution" then it indeed *would* "be supernatural creation"
but not "as well". Because then it wouldn't be called "evolution" - it would
be called "creation":
"Darwinistic evolution would be a most peculiar creative method for God
to choose given the Darwinistic insistence that biological evolution was
*undirected.* That requirement means that God neither programmed
evolution in advance nor stepped in from time to time to pull it in the right
direction. How then did God ensure that humans would come into
existence so that salvation history would have a chance to occur? Once this
logical difficulty is recognized, the attempt to reconcile Darwinism and
theism collapses. Either God rules creation-which means that He somehow
directed evolution to produce humans-or He doesn't. The former isn't
Darwinism, and the latter isn't theism." (Johnson P.E., "Creator or Blind
Watchmaker?", First Things, January 1993, p12. Emphasis in original.)
PM>And why would God provide us with all these data suggesting that He
>indeed did it that way?
What "data" is that exactly?
PM>The alternative is far more troublesome, in that it requires the belief
>that God is trying to fool us .
Maybe you are fooling yourself Pim:
"In his famous 1974 Commencement address at Caltech, Richard Feynman
provided an inspiring counter-example of how science ought to be
practiced. He began by warning against self-deception, the original sin of
science, saying that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself,
and you are the easiest person to fool." (Johnson P.E., "How to Sink a
Battleship: A call to separate materialist philosophy from empirical
science", The Real Issue: Edited from the final address at the 1996 Mere
Creation conference" http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9602/johnson.html)
PM>And rightly so if the issue is science.
What is "rightly so"?
SJ>A good example is the following:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 21:40:25 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>[...]
PM>Stephen continues:
SJ>GM>One of the criticisms creationists make about the inorganic origin
>of life
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>[...]
SJ>Note the *automatic* assumption above of fully naturalistic causes
>"there is a mechanism (unknown to us at this moment" and "I don't know
>the mechanism but there is one".
PM>No the issue is the the criticism made by creationists and potential
>mechanisms which could address this.
Disagree. Glenn does not even consider that the creationists might be right.
He assumes *apriori* that "there is a mechanism" for the origin of pure L-
amino acids, even though he admits it is "unknown to us at this moment".
Indeed, he repeats that there *is* such a mechanism: "I don't know the
mechanism but there is one" even without any evidence.
That is pure, Theistic Naturalism: a "fervent faith that a naturalistic
explanation for the origin of life simply *must* be there to be found":
"One of these commentators is New York University chemistry professor
Robert Shapiro, author of the excellent popular book "Origins: A Skeptic's
View of the Creation of Life on Earth." Shapiro realizes that a satisfactory
theory of chemical evolution may be a long time coming, but his faith in
naturalistic explanation is equal to the challenge:
`Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments
run to discover a probable origin for life have failed unequivocally. Further,
new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appearance of life on the
earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no trace of
life, or processes leading to life, elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists
might choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, myself included,
would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific explanations
in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder.'
The theistic naturalists seem to share this fervent faith that a naturalistic
explanation for the origin of life simply *must* be there to be found."
(Johnson P.E., "Creator or Blind Watchmaker?", First Things, January
1993, p10. Emphasis in original.)
PM>Before looking into supernatural explanations, should we first not
>exhaust the natural ones?
In the case of *origins* why not do both:
"If there are no gaps in the fabric of natural causation, then obviously
appeal to divine activity will get us off track. On the other hand, if there are
such gaps, refusing on principle to recognize them within science will
equally get us off track. We should perhaps be wary of both ways of going
wrong. If in our intellectual endeavors we are attempting to get at truth as
best we can, then if we have rational reason-from whatever source-to
believe that God has taken a hand in the origin or ongoing operation of the
cosmos, arbitrarily excluding that belief needs some justification." (Ratzsch
D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings," 1996, pp193-194)
And as Shapiro's quote above makes clear, for philosophical naturalists
there will *never* come a time when "we...exhaust the natural ones".
Shapiro would not "look...into supernatural explanations" even when
"we...have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or processes
leading to life, elsewhere."
PM>And what is so destructive about Glenn pointing out this
I didn't say that Glenn *was* being "destructive about Glenn pointing out
this". I said that "Glenn attacks relentlessly and destructively any Christian
apologist like Johnson or Ross who proposes *any* form of supernatural
creation."
Indeed, Glenn "proudly pleads guilty" to destructively criticising the
positions of Christian apologists:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27 May 1998 21:50:01 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>SJ>For the record, unless I indicate otherwise, when I say that Glenn
>>destructively criticises Christian apologists, I mean he destructively
>>criticises their *positions*, not their persons.
GM>We might actually be making progress here. I would absolutely plead
>guilty to this. In fact I would proudly plead guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>Moreover note above that Glenn *criticises* "creationists" and
>"Christians" who believe that "nature can't produce anything but racemic
>forms". Indeed Glenn declares that concept "flawed" apriori, despite the
>fact that there is still no hard evidence that unaided nature can produce
>100% pure L-amino acids which is what life requires.
PM>That is incorrect as Glenn has pointed out.
Where exactly has "Glenn...pointed out" that "unaided nature can produce
100% pure L-amino acids?"
PM>Now whether this is THE mechanism is open to discussion.
Again the *automatic* assumption that there *must* be a "mechanism" for
producing fully naturalistically 100% pure L-amino acids.
PM>You should try to read what Glenn writes before attacking him with a
>statement which is directly contradicted by what you responded to.
See above. I *have* "read what Glenn writes".
PM>Stephen refering to Glenn's writing
[...]
>GM>different wave. In a very real sense, he is the creator of each wave
>>even though he is nowhere in sight. Why must we limit God to ?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>This is the classical deistic picture of God as the clock-maker who
>winds up a clock at the beginning and then withdraws from any further
>involvement. What is even more revealing is Glenn's assumption that
>somehow "we limit God" if He is "standing in the office."
PM>Given the evidence this is far more likely an explanation.
Are you confirming my point that Glenn's "...is the classical deistic picture
of God"?
But if "before looking into supernatural explanations" we
"should...first...exhaust the natural ones" then it is not surprising on that
"Given the evidence this is far more likely an explanation". You have
excluded the possibility up-fronmt that there*could* be any "evidence"
presented supporting to "supernatural explanations"!
PM>And why not ? Certainly such an involvement, or lack of involvement
>shows a far 'greater' God than one who has to keep fine-tuning things ?
How does *both* "involvement, or lack of involvement shows a far
'greater' God"?
And who says "God...*has* to *keep* fine-tuning things? Why is God
lesser if He *planned* to intervene at strategic points in the history of life,
just as He did in human history:
"...the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." (Rev 13:8)
The fact is that the Biblical God is very much into "fine-tuning":
"But can this First Cause fill the role of "the God who reveals Himself in
Scripture"? The biblical God seems to engage in a lot of creaturely
behavior. The New Testament tells us that the Second Person of the Trinity
was born as a human baby in a stable in Bethlehem, and after growing to
adulthood performed some very immediate miraculous acts before dying a
very creaturely death on the cross. He changed water into wine, healed
leprosy and blindness, fed multitudes on scraps of food, raised Lazarus
from the dead, and eventually rose from the dead Himself and ascended to
heaven. Is this a God who would never, in Van Till's words, "temporarily
[assume] the role of creature to perform functions within the economy of
the creation that other creatures have not been equipped to perform"? And
how can so much supernatural activity be reconciled with a naturalistic
philosophy of creation?" (Johnson P.E., "Creator or Blind Watchmaker?",
First Things, January 1993, p11)
>SJ>No. If we are talking about "He" (ie. God) then "whether or not he -
>did- use" *natural processes". Your assumption that it natural processes
>are automatically "evolution" just begs the question and proves my
>point.
PM>Given the evidence, why ignore this possibility. It is definitely far more
>likely than the alternatives.
Pim I *don't* "ignore this possibility". I have repeatedly said that God
*could* have worked through natural processes". Indeed it is the name I
gave this thread:
"RE: God could have worked through natural processes (was Evolutionary
Information 1/2)"
I just don't assume apriori like Theistic Naturalists do that God *must*
have worked through natural processes.
Indeed, it is the *Theistic Naturalists* (like yourself) who "ignore" the
other "possibility" that God *might not* have always worked through
natural processes.
"In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally
incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by natural
selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem unbiblical to
some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent Creator to
choose, but it is always possible that God might do something that
confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism and
theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general
explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to
naturalistic evolution is possible. To know *that* is to assume that God
does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create." (Johnson
P.E., "Creator or Blind Watchmaker?", First Things, January
1993, p14. Emphasis in original.)
>SJ>Disagree. We are talking of positions *within* Christian "theism".
>True "deism" is incompatible with Christianity becuase it denies
>supernatural Revelation and salvation miracles:
PM>Of course that is merely an opinion. What if you are wrong ?
Pim, I gave a definition of "true `deism'" from a book about Deism and
quoted the reference. So how can you claim that this is "merely an
opinion"? Have you got any other references that contradict it?
Or are you saying that "deism" does deny "supernatural Revelation and
salvation miracles" yet it is not "incompatible with Christianity"?
>SJ>"A person who assumes a priori that such creation events must have
>scientifically ascertainable material causes is a metaphysical naturalist. If
>he believes in God he is a theistic naturalist, who limits God's freedom by
>the dictates of naturalistic philosophy." (Johnson P.E., "God and
>Evolution: An Exchange: Howard J. Van Till - Phillip E. Johnson", First
>Things, June 1993.
>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)>>
PM>I believe it is far more limiting to assume that God must have worked
>through supernatural powers.
Agreed. But I don't claim that "God must have worked through
supernatural powers." I repeat my position: "God could have worked
through natural processes".
>SJ>And it certainly "retards the discussion" by Theistic Naturalists just
>ignoring the *content* of the arguments of "Johnson (and...his
>defenders)", and focusing on their *form* claiming it is just "lawyerly
>rhetoric" and done "sloppily and polemically" at that. If anyone is using
>"rhetoric...polemically" it is Theistic Naturalists like yourself!>>
PM>A fine example of 'if one is free of sin, let him throw the first stone'.
>How ironic Stephen.
Indeed it is "ironic"! Actually it was *John Rylander* who threw *this*
"first stone":
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:34:25 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
JR>Johnson (and occasionally his defenders) sometimes makes good
>points. But it's very unfortunate when they are expressed by him or others
>with lawyerly rhetoric, sloppily and polemically. This retards the
>discussion.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------