Once again out of sympathy for our patient observers I have snipped passages from
earlier discussions which I see as no longer relevant. I hope I have not removed
anything vital, so we proceed...
Stephen E. Jones wrote:
> Reflectorites
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:36:25 +1000, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>
> [continued]
>
>
> 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:
My ironic sense of humour has got me into trouble again. Clearly I have touched a
nerve, so I withdraw my comment (and my grin). Your point about ad hominem attacks
is well noted. It is something that we should all avoid. The challenge before us
all is how to constructively critique ideas without attacking the person. We must
always strive to remember that everybody believes their ideas well founded and try
not to take criticism personally.
> "...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!
A TE/EC who works in the field of evolutionary biology or palaeontology should
clarify and critique models of evolutionary change and details of evolutionary change
by appropriate research. This no different to what he or she's non-Christian
counterpart would be doing, although one would hope that as a Christian they would
have a high commitment to integrity in their research. This is a minimalist
position. Such work may, or may not, lead to questions of "design", whatever that
might be. We however digress from the central point of our discussion, which is
whether or not those who hold TE/EC positions are marginalised in theology and
science.
> 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.
The issue we are discussing is your statement about whether TE/EC is marginalised,
not Johnson. I am not here to bury Johnson, or even praise him (to paraphrase Mark
Anthony). Sorry for waffling (even briefly)! I hope I have now clarified (at least
partly) what I meant by how a TE/EC should modify evolutionary theories. But could
you explain how you see a non-EC/EC should modify theories on the history of life or
adaptation?
> >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?
People holding TE/EC would of course hope to see more of their fellow scientists
become Christians. Their "strategy" would vary from person to person, and context to
context. With one it would be how science and faith are not in conflict, with
another the reality of Christian experience of forgiveness, reconciliation, and
peace, with a third, the historicity of the gospels. These are weightier issues than
trying to convince people of TE/EC. However, in discussion with fellow scientists
who are not believers I suspect most TE/EC would say that God is creator and
sustainer, and that all science discovers is how God has worked and is working in the
world. Organic evolution is the way which God creates living things. I can't speak
for everyone, but that is certainly what I do. It would not do to convience some, but
then there are those whom not even somone coming back from the dead would convience
(Luke 16:31)
> 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!
I am not sure I understand the point you are making. Weinberg is not talking about
TE/EC folk at all, only "religious liberals", what ever that be. He rejects
"religious liberals" just like he rejects "conservatives" (again, what ever they are
in this case). He just is not interested in any religious claims whatsoever. The
basis for this is his own rejection of faith, not any scientific knowledge. I
remember reading his popular book "The first three minutes" as a teenager, and being
excited and awed (as I still am) by the description of the early history of the
universe. I was then flummoxed on the last page when he made his (in)famous
statement about the more we learn about the universe the more pointless it seems to
be. It certainly did not arise out of any evidence he presented in the rest of the
book, but out of his own a priori atheism. As far as I know, Weinberg does not
reject the research of cosmologists who are theists. He accepts their science, just
disagrees with their metaphysics. So how does this support your claim that he has
marginalised scientifically TE/EC colleagues? Can you come up with any piece of
scientific research in cosmology that Weinberg has rejected because it was done by
people who were TE/EC, rather than because the science was poor? Can you give any
evidence that he as worked to exclude (marginalise) these people from research
funding or teaching?
> 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.
I don't think I have ever said that TE/EC has a specific scientific merit, anymore
than theistic quantum mechanics or theistic plate tectonics have specific scientific
merit. If I did give that impression, I certainly did not intend to. TE/EC is simply
an acknowledgement that God can (and, they believe, has) worked by biological
evolution. It's prime merits are theological. Why do you keep expecting a
theological position to have specific scientific consequences? There are general
advantages to science by an understanding that the universe is creation. One would
hope that a Christian would, because of his or her faith, have a high standard of
integrity in their research, and a concern that their work would be used ethically.
Christians would perhaps draw different metaphysical conclusions from their work.
But specific scientific consequences? Please give examples. Aree are back to the
question of whether there is a specifically Christian way to bake a cake (sorry,
build an airliner), write music, paint a picture?
> 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":
The metaphysical content of "This limestone was deposited in a tropical shelf
environment" vs "This limestone was deposited on a temperate shelf environment" is
rather low. In the same way one could, as a committed theist, switch from a position
of "progressive creation" (to pick an example) to TE/EC, purely of the basis of
scientific evidence, without changing your commitment to theism in the slightest. I
know, because I did. Of course, this position change could for some occur, not
because of scientific evidence, but because of a change in metaphysics, say from
semi-deism to theism.
> "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)
The world is a unified whole, I agree, and science is, in a sense, a branch of
philosophy. This does not mean that we cannot practically separate between
scientific statements and metaphysical ones.
> 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.
So atheism is not a theological statement?
> 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.
The data that Johnson quotes is only about the general public, not for seminaries,
so is irrelevant. The same for the survey of the perceptions of university students
in Australia. These data are interesting and important for other reasons, but they
say nothing about the position of TE/EC among theologians or scientists.
> 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!
No, the issue is whether TE/EC is marginalised among scientists and theologians.
This is not the same as saying whether it is a marginal position amongst the general
Christian public (true in the US, probably true in Australia, debatable in the UK,
and non true in Europe), and different to saying it is marginalised (as in
deliberately excluded from the conversation). EC/EC may be marginalised amongst the
Christian public in the US, but is not always in Australia, or, as far as I know, in
the UK or Europe.
> 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.
I should explain myself better. All people try to understand the world about then,
but not all are scientists. All people try and make sense of the world, but not all
are philosophers. All people (not just Christians) think about God, but not all are
theologians. Certainly theological ignorance is not an impedance to practical
godliness. Many people I know who are theologically illiterate in a formal sense a
spiritual giants in a practical and experiential sense I admire and respect.
However there is often a difference between folk theology and that done by
professionals, just as there is between pop psychology and real pyschology. You also
have to admit that there has been a serious neglect of intellectual matters amongst
evangelical Christians this century. This has not encouraged high quality thought
(only one part of the Christian life, but a necessary part all the same) in a whole
plethora of issues, not just science and theology. So we should be surprised if there
are some odd ideas among evangelical Christians who are neither scientists nor
theologians.
> 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.
We do have Christ promise, but also have to acknowledge that Christians do not always
seem to available themselves of it. Witness the constant tendency to legalism
amongst Christians, or the related tendency to aid something to the grace of God.
Does the prevalence of legalism or the desire to aid to grace indicate that salvation
by grace alone 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?
It is an indeed an inditement on TE/EC. We have not explained ourselves well, we
have tended to stay in holy huddle and not communicate out side it, and there
doubtless has been an ivory tower mentality. There was also for many decades a
reluctance to explore the theological avenues opened by Orr and Warfield, among
others and a split between evangelical and other theolgians. Also, with the rising
power and influence of the YEC movement, there has been a tendency, for the sake of
peace and quiet, to keep a low profile. These are however excuses. Thank you for
reminding me, and others, that it is important to communicate what we believe to the
broader community, both Christian and non Christian.
> 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.
Mia culpa again. However, I am trying to change.
> 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....
The Bible rarely says directly how God acts in the world, it only affirms that He
does. However in Job and Psalms we see taught that God works by what we would
"natural" means (Job 10:8-11, 36:3138:25-30, 39-41; Psalm 104: 10-23, 139:15). At
times even God's signs and wonders are clearly attributed to God working by "natural"
means (Exodus 14:21). Historically the church fathers understood the three fold
repetition of the phrase "Let the earth bring forth... let the waters bring forth...
let the earth bring forth" as referring to creative processes which were occurring at
present. Please give some Bible references which preclude organic evolution. Also
please explain why creation of the organic world is different from creation of the
inorganic world.
> 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.
Sorry, I have to quibble - it was a direct quote from your quote of Johnson's
"Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, 1992.
>>http://wri.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter1.html)"
> 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.
But don't you see these are two separate issues? I am sure you do. The truth or
otherwise of organic evolution has nothing to do with whether organic evolution is
compatible with Christian theology. Theologians rightly are (for the most part)
cautious about assessing the validity of a scientific theory which is outside their
professional competence to judge. They work with science as they find it. Further, I
would argue that God was as active throughout the past 13 Ga (or whatever the
cosmologists currently think it is) of the universe's history as He has been in "the
relatively short period of human history". I don't see this activity as
intervention, but God's continuous sustaining and creative activity. Nor to I expect
what I see as a scientists in the creation to be neccessarily different to what an
atheist or a deist would. You say above that:
"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."
However you acknowledged yourself several weeks back when you reintroduced yourself
to the discussion (Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:01:34 +0800 "I'm back")
"Personally I would have no problem with even the most extreme form of
Darwinist `blind watchmaker' evolution, if it were proved true, since the
Bible teaches quite clearly that God is in total control of all events, even
those that appear random to man (cf. Proverbs 16:33; 1 Kings 22:34)."
I could not said it better.
> [continued]
>
> Steve
This is going to be a long one then, three parts no less (or will it be more)! Until
next time then,
God Bless
Jonathan