> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Jones [mailto:sejones@ibm.net]
> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 1998 7:29 AM
> To: Evolution Reflector
> Cc: John E. Rylander
> Subject: RE: The main issue between Theistic Naturalists and Theistic
> Realists (was God could have ...)
>
>
> John
>
> On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:25:38 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
>
> JR>Stephen, If you ever learn to be much more intellectually careful and
> >precise, you will be an effective advocate for your views.
>
> SJ>Let's face it John, the *last thing* you would want is for
> creationists
> >like me to become an effective advocate for our views!
>
> The proof of this is that you dismiss even Phillip Johnson views
> as mere
> rehetoric. If even the most effective advocate for creationist
> views is
> dismissed out of hand, then it follows that for you there *can
> never* be an
> effective advocate for creationist views !
>
> JR>In the meantime, your messages are painful to read.
>
> Well then don't read them! If you continue your increasing complaints
> about my posts, I will start addressing my responses to your
> posts directly
> to the Group. That will save you from feeling any obligations
> that you have
> to read them.
>
> JR>So often, -so- often you settle on statements that are rhetorically
> >appealing, but just misstate things miserably. I'm afraid this
> is more of
> >the same in that respect.
>
> Thanks for the compliment! I am pleased that you now regard my posts the
> the same as you regard Phil Johnson's. I must be hitting the mark!
>
> JR>Aside from misunderstandings and bizarre assertions (-one-
> >example: -Christian- evolutionists make "*naturalistic metaphysical
> >assumptions*" [your emphasis]), you ask a question that I'll answer:
>
> I marvel that you think this is a "bizarre assertion". It is the *basic
> metaphysical assumption* of Theistic Evolutionists on this Reflector
> (inlcuding yourself) that God did not intervene supernaturally in
> nature but
> worked solely through natural processes.
>
> JR>What are the main issues between Theistic Evolutionists/Evolutionary
> >Creationists on the one hand, and Progressive Creationists/"Theistic
> >Realists" on the other?
> >
> >Here's what comes to my mind:
> >
> >(1) Is evolutionary theory a -plausible- or even -physically -possible--
> >explanation for the development (and perhaps also origin) of all
> life? ECs:
> >typically yes, typically yes*; PCs no, often no.
>
> In practice TE/ECs on this list go further and: a) claim that
> "evolutionary
> theory" *is the only* "explanation for the
> development...and...origin...of all
> life"; and b) critcise creationists who are sceptical of this.
>
> JR>(2) Is it proper to restrict explanations in natural science to natural
> >forces and objects? Or to ask it another way, is it IMproper to include
> >divine, miraculous intervention -in theories of natural science-? : yes;
> >PCs, No (if they consider PC to be a purely scientific theory)
> or probably
> >Yes (if they don't).
>
> This just concedes my whole point. if "ECs" think it is "imroper
> to include
> divine, miraculous intervention -in theories of natural science"
> then they are
>
> 1) making a "naturalistic metaphysical assumptions" about what "science"
> is and that God would not use "miraculous intervention" in
> originating and
> developing His living world.
>
> JR>(3) Is it critically important to Xian theology that Adam and
> Eve (a) be
> >the literal first and only biological parents of the entire
> human race, and
> >(b) have no animal ancestry? ECs: -typically- no (but sometimes
> yes), and
> >no; PCs: typically yes, and typically yes.
>
> The above is probably a true statement of differences between PC and EC
> generally, but I am not aware of it being a "main issue...between
> Theistic
> Evolutionists/Evolutionary Creationists ...and Progressive
> Creationists/"Theistic Realists" on this List. I am AFAIK the only PC/TR
> on this list at the moment and I don't claim that "it [is]
> critically important
> to Xian theology that Adam and Eve...be the literal first and
> only biological
> parents of the entire human race, and...have no animal ancestry."
>
> JR>There are other issues too (nature of the fall, general reading of
> >Genesis 1-3), but these are the three most important that come to my
> >mind right now.
>
> Well you point (2) concedes my main point! Thanks.
>
> 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)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>