On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:36:25 +1000, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
[continued]
[...]
>SJ>"...Most theistic evolutionists do not challenge either the conclusions
>>of evolutionary biology or its naturalistic methodology, but argue
>>merely that evolution by natural processes is compatible with theistic
>>religion. To the extent that they go farther, and postulate a supernatural
>>directing force in evolution, they violate the rules of methodological
>>naturalism and are no more welcome in scientific discussions than
>>outright creationists. In either case, what scientific topic is there to
>>talk about?" (Johnson P.E,...Review of The Battle of the Beginnings",
>>by Del Ratzsch, ..., 1996.
JC>Johnson's logic is rather opaque here. Perhaps it needs a legal mind
>to understand it (grin)!.
I note Jonathan's "<grin>", but this sort of think has been said so many
times by TE/ECs (and indeed of NEs), that it is no longer a joke. The
NTSE conference, which was attended by leading TEs and NEs, resolved
that there would be no more "he's just a lawyer..." ad hominem attacks on
Phil Johnson:
"...I should mention at least one other point upon which we
reached a firm consensus: that the time has come to conduct the debate on
methodological naturalism and theistic science on the merits (indeed, on the
scientific merits) of the case, and we should no longer tolerate ad hominen
attacks on Prof. Johnson, with attendant name-calling, bullying and
intimidation ("he's just a lawyer... he doesn't understand how science
works...", etc.). The project of launching theistic paradigms in science is
now much larger than a one-man crusade and would go forward even if,
per impossibile, it were possible to silence or discredit Johnson. A growing
number of young scientists, scholars and philosophers of science are
staking their careers on the prospects of an emerging design paradigm,
including Dembski at Notre Dame, Nelson at Chicago, Meyer at
Whitworth, and Corey at the Union Institute, to name a few." (Koons R.C.,
:Reflections from an Organizer", NTSE Final Report, Conference on
Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise, University of Texas at
Austin, February 20-23, 1997.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/ntsereport.html)
Moreover, there is no such thing as "the legal mind" or "the scientific mind",
there are just *human* minds! If TE/ECs need to appeal to such unscientific
fictions as "the legal mind" in order to insulate their position from outside
criticism, then their position must be shaky indeed!
JC>From where I see things TE's don't challenge the conclusions of
>evolutionary biology because (rightly or not) they don't see the need to at
>least not in the sense that Johnson says that it needs to be challenged.
Maybe Jonathan can tell us in what "sense" it *is* that "TE's" *do*
"challenge the conclusions of evolutionary biology"? Otherwise they
he confirms Johnson's point!
JC>I don't think that Johnson rhetoric actually says anything germane at
>this point.
Having himself: 1. indulged in "rhetoric" about Johnson's alleged "legal
mind", 2. confirmed Johnson's main point that "Most theistic evolutionists
do not challenge either the conclusions of evolutionary biology or its
naturalistic methodology", and then 3. waffling on vaguely about TEs
seeing a *different* "need to challenge the conclusions of evolutionary
biology" but not specifying what it is; Jonathan 4. finishes by asserting that
*Johnson* says nothing "germane at this point"!
Jonathan, for all his beginning politeness, is starting to sound just like all
the other TE/ECs, ie. `shooting the messenger', rather than deal with the
message, which is a pity.
>SJ>... Naturalistic Evolutionists (NEs) are contemptuous of TE/ECs
>>attempts to show that Christianity and naturalistic evolution are
>>compatible. For example, Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven
>>Weinberg respects "religious conservatives" (ie. creationists), even
>>though he thinks they "are wrong in what they believe". But he
>>regards "religious liberals" (ie. TE/ECs) as "not even wrong":...
>>Weinberg S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," 1992, pp257-258)
JC>I don't think that Weinberg's statement has any relevance to whether
>TE/EC has anything useful to contribute here.
The "relevance" Weinberg's statement's was to support my original claim
that TE is marginalised in mainstream science. That one of the world's
leading non-theistic scientists thinks that TE is more vacuous than
creationism, represents a total failure of TE/EC in its strategy of trying
to win over such scientists to TE/EC.
Of course, this is assuming that TE/EC *did* have the strategy of trying
to win over such scientists to TE/EC. If it didn't even have that strategy,
then of what use would TE/EC be?
JC>He is not saying anything about the scientific merits of TE/EC
>people
On the contrary, Weinberg is saying that TE/EC doesn't *have* any
*distinctive* "scientific merits" at all!
If Jonathan claims that Weinberg is wrong and that TE/EC does have
distinctive "scientific merits", over and above NE, then perhaps he can
state what exactly they are.
JC>but making a statement on metaphysics.
This is a false dichotomy. Any claim about "the scientific merits" of a
position is by definition "a statement on metaphysics":
"Finally, questions about the nature of definition in general and attempts to
define science in particular are philosophical issues, not scientific issues per
se. For the question `What is the proper definition of science?' is itself a
philosophical question about science that assumes a vantage point above
science; it is not a question of science. One may need to reflect on specific
episodes in the history of science to answer the question. But the question
and the reflection required to answer it are philosophical in nature, a point
not diminished merely because a scientist may try to define science. When
she does so, she is doing philosophy." (Moreland J.P., "Christianity and the
Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation", 1992, pp20-21)
JC>However his theology and metaphysics in my reading seems rather
>naive."
Weinberg is an *atheist*, so he makes no pretensions about having a
"theology". He is making a comment on TEs *scientific* claims.
JC>In any case, many TE/EC folk would not consider themselves
>"theological liberals". Weinberg's labelling of such people indicates
>how limited is understanding is in the area.
The term Weinberg (and I) used was "religious liberals". Anyway, this is
just a quibble. Weinberg is speaking as an *outsider*, and he is contrasting
broad categories of what seems to him, "religious conservatives"
(represented by creationists) and "religioud liberals" (represented, amongst
others, by theistic evolutionists). Substitute the words "theistic
evolutionists" for his "religious liberals", and "creationists" for his
"religious conservatives" and one would have what Weinberg meant.
>SJ>Second, "TE/EC" *is* "marginalised in...mainstream...theology"', in
>>the sense that while TE/EC might be the dominant view in liberal
>>Christian seminaries, it is a view that is increasingly becoming
>>marginalised in the larger number of conservative Christian seminaries
>>and Bible colleges. Opinion polls show that nearly 50% of the *general
>>public* believe that "God created mankind...within the last 10,000
>>years", with only 40% believing that "God guided this process":...
>>(Johnson P.E., "... in "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, 1992.
>>http://wri.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter1.html)
>>
>>But TE/ECs must share this latter 40% with Old Earth/Progressive
>>Creationists, so even among "the *general public*" TE/EC views are a
>>minority. Therefore, I would expect among *Christians* the TE/EC
>>views would be an even smaller minority.
JC>These surveys are of course done in the US. Does what the majority
>of the American public believe determine what is correct? A survey
>done in Australia or the UK would give different results. Are
>Australians or British better or worse at deciding such issues?
I am not aware of any similar opinion poll "done in Australia or the UK"
on the same topic. But I do have a reference to a survey done of Australian
university students, which showed that an average of 12% of first year
biology students across 17 Australian universities believed that "the
natural world...was created by God a few thousand years ago":
"As for the Institute of Biology survey of students published in June 1992,
yes, it is a shocker. First-year biology students from seventeen of our
universities were asked to choose from three explanations of the form of
the natural world: that it evolved according to Darwinian principles; that
evolution took place but had some assistance from some 'external' force; or
that it was created by God a few thousand years ago. That 12 per cent
opted for the third, creationist explanation is startling. At Sydney's
University of Technology it was a whopping 20 per cent and 17 per cent at
the University of Sydney itself. The least 'creationist' were Murdoch (3 per
cent), the Australian National University (4 per cent) and the University of
Western Australia (4 per cent). The state of New South Wales was indeed
highest, with Queensland coming in at 7 per cent (James Cook), 11 per
cent Queensland University and 13 per cent Queensland University of
Technology." (Williams R., "A Promise of Miracles", 1993, pp212-213).
Williams does not give the figures for the first two positions, but one
would assume that a higher percentage of the general public, and an even
higher percentage of the committed Christian community would believe in
the third alternative and therefore less in the first two. If so, this
would conform broadly to the USA pattern, that TE/EC is a minority position
in the general public, and even more so in the Christian community.
In any event, since: 1) the majority of members of this Reflector are in
the USA; and 2) the population of the USA is about 4 times greater than
the combined population of "Australia" and "the UK"; I would be happy
to restrict my claim that TE was marginalised in both mainstream
science and theology, to the USA, for the time being.
Since Jonathan appears not to be disputing that TE/EC is a minority
position among the general public of the USA, then I presume I can
take it that he concedes my modified point?
JC>I agree that TE/EC is a probably minority among the Christian
>public. But what is that to do with the issue?
Well, that *is* "the issue" in this thread!
JC>It is simply a reflection of the theological ignorance of most
>Christians.
This sounds like an arrogant statement. "Most Christians" might not
know the fine points of *academic* theology, but they are not
"theological ignorant" in a practical sense.
We have Christ's assurance that He would send His Holy Spirit to guide
His sheep into the truth (Jn 14:16-17) the help them to recognise false
teaching (Jn 10:1-5,27). The pervasive resistance to evolution among
the Christian Church as a whole, is evidence to me of the work of the
Holy Spirit in individual Christian believers that theistic evolution
is false teaching.
Also, Jonathan's claim that "TE/EC views are a minority...among Christians"
is due to " the theological ignorance of most Christians" is really an
indictment of TE/ECs. If TE/ECs they are the cream of Christian intellect,
and they are in the best position to reconcile science and Christianity,
how come they have been so unsuccessful in persuading "most" of their
fellow "Christians" about the alleged truth of evolution?
My view (which I have pointed out previously on the Reflector) of why
TE/ECs have failed to convince the majority of their Christian brothers
of the alleged truth of evolution is that TE/ECs have been more concerned
at appeasing their fellow atheistic scientists, than they have been
concerned about their own Christian brothers. They have largely abandoned
their intellectually less well-endowed fellow Christians, and then act
contemptuously towards them when they turn to the YECs who at least *do*
show concern for them.
JC>It says nothing about whether the theology itself is right or wrong.
Jonathan does not say what his *criteria* of "right or wrong" is here? If
*the Bible* is the standard, then TE/EC would fare badly, depending on how
close it was to Deistic Evolution, ie. denying supernatural intervention,
as Erickson points out:
"Although the term is rarely heard, deistic evolution is perhaps the best
way to describe one variety of what is generally called theistic evolution.
This is the view that God began the process of evolution, producing the
first matter and implanting within the creation the laws which its
development has followed. Thus, he programmed the process. Then he
withdrew from active involvement with the world, becoming, so to speak,
Creator emeritus. The progress of the created order is free of direct
influence by God. He is the Creator of everything, but only the first living
form was directly created. All the rest of God's creating has been done
indirectly. God is the Creator, the ultimate cause, but evolution is the
means, the proximate cause. Thus, except for its view of the very beginning
of matter, deistic evolution is identical to naturalistic evolution for it denies
that there is any direct activity by a personal God during the ongoing
creative process. Deistic evolution has little difficulty with the scientific
data. There is a different story with respect to the biblical material,
however. There is a definite conflict between deism's view of an absentee
God and the biblical picture of a God who has been involved in not merely
one but a whole series of creative acts." (Erickson M.J., "Christian
Theology", 1985, pp480-481)
This is clear because TE/ECs rarely appeal to the Bible, but rather they
appeal to other theologians. For example, Van Till appeals to some
disputed passages in Augustine and Basil, but even this has been critiqued
on theological grounds:
"According to Howard Van Till, the early Christian fathers Basil and
Augustine taught that life appeared as a consequence of creaturely
capacities which God bestowed on the world from the beginning, in
contrast to special creationism, which teaches that God intervened in the
creation to make living things. To reconcile Christian faith with modern
science, Van Till advocates recovering "the historic creationist tradition,"
which he characterizes as the "forgotten doctrine of Creation's functional
integrity" taught by Basil and Augustine. Basil, however, believed that God
intervened in the creation to make living things, and was thus a special
creationist. According to Augustine, God created everything
simultaneously and placed causal principles into the creation which
subsequently produced creatures in time. But Augustine proposed his
theory of causal principles to emphasize that every species was created in
the beginning by a special act of God, and he denied that creaturely
capacities could produce anything new. Therefore, Van Till's "forgotten
doctrine of Creation's functional integrity" has no basis in Basil's theology,
and its emphasis on creaturely capacities is alien to Augustine's theology;
so "the historic creationist tradition" is not what Van Till represents it to
be." (Wells J., "Abusing Theology: Howard Van Till's `Forgotten Doctrine
of Creation's Functional Integrity'", Origins & Design, 19:1.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od191/abusingtheology191.htm)
JC>Interesting that Johnson does not give any evidence to back up his
>claim that "it is a view that is increasingly becoming marginalised in the
>larger number of conservative Christian seminaries and Bible colleges".
That is not surprising, since that was *my* claim, not Johnson's! I used
the opinion poll data cited by Johnson.
JC>Integrating biology and theology is an area of very great interest for
>theologians at the moment as they move on from cosmology.
>Evolutionary biology is a key part of this.
No doubt. But they are assuming that "Evolutionary biology" is true,
when the Darwinian version of evolution requires absolutely that all
mutations that there have ever been in the 3.8 billion-year history of life
have been random. To know that that claim is true, one must know that
either there is no God, or if there is a God, He never guided, influenced
or intervened in genetic changes in that 3.8 billion year history of life.
(see my recent letters to the Editor post).
When this is explained to them, the vast majority of Christians would
think this proposition dubious (to say the least) because: 1) the Bible
reveals a God who has *repeatedly* in the relatively short period of
human history; and 2) there is no compelling scientific evidence that
random mutations and natural selection could build up life's specified
complexity.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our hypothetical nucleic acid synthesis system is therefore analogous to
the scaffolding used in the construction of a building. After the building has
been erected the scaffolding is removed, leaving no physical evidence that
it was ever there. *Most of the statements in this section must therefore be
taken as educated guesses.* Without having witnessed the event, it seems
unlikely that we shall ever be certain of how life arose" (Voet D. & Voet
J.G., "Biochemistry", John Wiley and Sons: New York NY, 1995, p23, in
Ashton J.F., ed., "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in
Creation", New Holland: Sydney NSW, Australia, 1999, p165. (emphasis
in original).
--------------------------------------------------------------------