Here is the third part of my response to Jonathan's long post. As
I said in my original post: "To avoid total confusion, I will avoid
answering replies to earlier parts until I have finished the
original post."
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:36:25 +1000, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
[continued]
[...]
>>JC>If we survey the present scene there are many leading theologians
>>>and scientists who argue for TE/EC. Among the theologians there are
>>>people such as Ted Peters, Mark Worthing, and Pope John Paul II.
>SJ>I have never heard of Ted Peters or Mark Worthing, and I have
>>read fairly widely in the Creation/Evolution debate. As for the Pope,
>>I am not sure that he really is a TE/EC, let alone a "theologian".
JC>Ted Peters is at the Pacific Lutheran seminary, Mark Worthing is at
>Luther College. Most are interested and write on the broader science-
>theology issues.
Thanks to Jonathan for this info. I will keep an eye out for their books.
But as for the question of whether these leading TE/ECs are marginalised
in the Christian community, I did a search of Amazon.com for their most
recent books on "science-theology" and their sales ranking (a relative
measure of how many people are buying their books-lowest number is
highest sales). I know this is a far-from perfect test, but it is the only one I
can think of and it does give some idea of their relative popularity in the
community as a whole:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Science and Theology : The New Consonance by Ted Peters (Editor)
....Paperback - 288 pages (May 1999) Westview Press; ISBN:
0813332591 ..Amazon.com Sales Rank: 193,109
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Theology and the Sciences)
by Mark William Worthing .Paperback (December 1995)
Fortress Pr; ISBN: 080062906X ...Amazon.com Sales Rank: 87,743
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At 193,109 and 87,743, both these books by Peters and Worthing are fairly
well down Amazon.com's sales ranking. By contrast Johnson's "Darwin on
Trial"'s sales rank was 9,106:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson ...Paperback - 220 pages 2nd
edition (November 1993) Intervarsity Pr; ISBN: 0830813241 ...
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 9,106
-----------------------------------------------------------------
and Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" was even higher at 1,376:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin's Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by
Michael J. Behe... Paperback - 320 pages (March 1998) Touchstone
Books; ISBN: 0684834936 ... Other Editions: Hardcover
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 1,376
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JC>While you are at it, you should consider reading some of Wolfhart
Pannenberg as well.
What does Jonathan assume I have not read "some of Wolfhart
Pannenberg"? I do have one of Pannenberg's theological books, plus
another anti-evolution/pro-design book where he wrote the
introduction. I had already intended to look for some of Pannenberg's
books on the Creation/Evolution issue.
But nevertheless, at an Amazon.com sales ranking of 192,486,
Pannenberg also appears marginalised:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Toward a Theology of Nature : Essays on Science and Faith by
Wolfhart Pannenberg, Ted Peters (Editor) ...Paperback - 166 pages
(October 1993) Westminster John Knox Pr; ISBN: 0664253849
...Amazon.com Sales Rank: 192,486
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JC>The pope not a theologian? Shhh.... don't tell the catholics.....
Actually, the other list I am on has a number of "catholics" including
catholic scientists, and philosophers. They have openly disagreed with
the Pope's recent statements on evolution, and while they recognise he
is a philosopher (he was originally a philosophy professor in Poland),
none of them AFAIK consider the Pope to be a theologian. The impression
I get is that these "catholics" think the Pope is being badly advised
by TE theologians!
>>JC>Among the scientists Sam Berry, Gillian Prance, Franciso
>>Ayala.
>SJ>Again I have never heard of Gillian Prance. And AFAIK Ayala is a
>>no longer a theist. Berry is indeed a TE, but I am not aware of him
>>making any case for TE/EC within the scientific community.
JC>Gillian is the recently retired director of Kew Gardens and a major
>researcher on botany and plant ecology, especially of tropical forests.
>He and his time at Kew was well written up in the journal Nature a
>few weeks back.
I would appreciate the exact reference. Was his TE/EC *position* "well
written up in the journal Nature"?
Amazon.com has a book on " Evolutionary Biology" co-edited by
Ghillean Prance. At 1,335,106, it is *very* low on their sales ranking:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionary Biology by Max K. Hecht, Bruce Wallace, Ghillean T.
Prance (Editor) .... Hardcover Vol 022 (April 1988) Plenum Pub Corp;
ISBN: 0306427427 ... Other Editions: Hardcover Amazon.com Sales
Rank: 1,335,106
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I would indeed be impressed if Prance argued his TE/EC position in that
evolutionary biology book!
JC>Sam Berry is quite open about his Christian commitment in
>scientific circles. What do you mean him making any case for TE/EC?
Just what I said. If he has a scientific "case for TE/EC" then why doesn't
he make it? If he doesn't have a scientific "case for TE/EC", then he
merely confirms what Johnson said above that: "...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...what scientific topic is there to talk about?" (Johnson , 1996).
JC>His position is quite properly a theological one, an therefore not
>one that is necessary in his exclusively scientific publications.
Why should the fact that "His position is...a theological one" entail that
it is "not...necessary in his...scientific publications"?
And if Berry's TE/EC position is a "theological one" and not a "scientific"
position, then why should Berry *as a scientist* be cited by TE/ECs as an
authority on TE/EC?
This sounds to me like TE/EC wants to have it both ways. Berry as a scientist
is allowed to convey his naturalistic evolution position to Christians, but
as a Christian he is not allowed to convey his theistic evolution position to
scientists!
JC>Why do you say that Ayala is no longer a theist?
I said that "AFAIK Ayala is no longer a theist" because recently in SCIENCE
Ayala emphatically denied that he backed "the goal of `understanding God and
spirituality through science'", and pointed out that he had long ago renounced
his vows as a priest:
"Constance Holden, in her article "Subjecting belief to the scientific
method" (News Focus, 21 May, p. 1257), writes that I back the goal of
"understanding God and spirituality through science." Let me state
unequivocally that I do not back such a goal. Rather, I maintain that
science and theology are two completely separate realms of knowledge.
Holden refers to me as "an ordained priest." While this may be accurately it
is misleading. I was ordained a priest in my youth but I renounced my vows
more than three decades ago. Francisco J. Ayala" ("Religion and Science",
Science, June 11; 1999, 284: 1773)
If Ayala is a TE/EC then he is keeping pretty quiet about it!
JC>Perhaps I have been misinformed or have misread his work.
I would appreciate Jonathan's reference to any "work" by Ayala where he
argues for TE/EC. I have one of Ayala;s books on Genetics, plus another
that he co-authored on Evolution, and neither make any case for TE/EC.
>>JC>Among those who are both scientists and theologians there is
>>>Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, and Robert Russell.
>SJ>I have never heard of Robert Russell. Peacocke AFAIK, denies
>>the Biblical miracles, including the resurrection of Christ, so he is
>>probably a DE, and I doubt whether Christian TE/ECs would
>>welcome him as a bedfellow. Polkinhorne is probably a TE, but he
>>denies some Biblical miracles, although he does accept the
>>resurrection of Christ. But Polkinhorne is an astrophysicist and has
>>AFAIK made little or no contribution to *biological* TE/EC.
JC>Robert Russell is at CTNS Berkeley and an important thinker on
>science, theology and the nature of divine action. He is both scientist
>and theologian.
Thanks to Jonathan again for this info. But as for Berry, what does it
matter that Russell "is both scientist and theologian" if TE/EC is a
"theological" position that has nothing distinctive to contribute to
his scientific position? And if it does have something to contribute,
then what is it and why doesn't he contribute it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaos and Complexity : Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action
(Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vol 2) by Robert John
Russell (Editor), Nancey Murphy (Editor), Arthur Peacocke (Editor)...
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 145,629
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JC>I agree that Peacocke has some unorthodox views (which I most
>certainly do not share), however he has much of interest and value
>to say.
That Peacocke might have "much of interest and value to say" means
nothing of itself. Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould
have "much of interest and value to say" but if Christianity is true,
much of what they say is *wrong*!
In any event, Peacocke is also by comparison marginalised, using
Amazon.com's sales ranking:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theology for a Scientific Age : Being and Becoming-Natural, Divine and
Human (Theology and the Sciences) by Arthur Peacocke... Paperback -
438 pages Enlarged edition (December 1993) Fortress Pr; ISBN:
0800627598 ... Amazon.com Sales Rank: 87,121
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JC>Also he is not a deist, but rather a panentheist.
I have since bought secondhand a book of Peacocke's in which he
admits he is indeed "a panentheist":
"the joint emphasis, which I, for one, have been making, both on the role
of chance in natural creativity and on the immanence of God in these same
natural processes leads not to deism but to that integration of immanence
and transcendence that I have already described (pages 95-7) - that 'the
Being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every
part of it exists in Him, but . . . that his Being is more than, and is not
exhausted by the universe' ('pan-en-theism')" (Peacocke A., "God and the
New Biology", 1986, p99)
Peacocke uses God-talk which sounds like Christian theism, but what he
really means by the "integration of immanence and transcendence" is that
there effectively is *only* immanence. Thus he denies that God can work
miracles, like the Virgin Birth:
"For example, in a recent conference at Notre Dame on `Science and
Religion in the Post-Positivist Era,' Arthur Peacocke claimed that modern
cell biology has `radically undermined' the credibility of the virgin birth
because it would require God's making a Y-chromosome de novo in
Mary's ovum-in other words, it would have to be a miracle!" (Craig W.L.,
"Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", 1994, p155)
Since Jonathan nominated Peacocke as among the "leading theologians
and scientists who argue for TE/EC" is he admitting that the "T" in TE/EC
can include even "panentheists"? And if so, where does he draw the line?
If TE can include "panentheists", could TE/EC also include actual
pantheists and well as deists?
JC>I am surprised that you rule Polkinghorne as someone with little to
>contribute.
Where did I "rule Polkinhorne [out]"? I said he was "probably a TE" but
that "has *AFAIK* made little or no contribution to *biological*
TE/EC." If Polkinhorne *has* in fact "made a contribution to
*biological* TE/EC" I would be interested to hear what it is, and where
it was made. I have two of Polkinhorne's books: "One World : The
Interaction of Science and Theology", and "he Quantum World". In
neither of them does he say much about biological evolution, and nothing
at all as far as I can see about theistic evolution.
JC>He may be only a physicist, but he is also well >qualified
theologically and has thought deeply about >questions of divine action
and the science-theology >interface.
No doubt. But Jonathan's original claim, to which I responded, was that
Polkinghorne is among the "many leading theologians and scientists who
argue for TE/EC." I took the "E" in TE/EC to mean primarily
*biological* evolution. Now maybe Polkinghorne has made a leading
contribution to theistic *biological* evolution, but I am not aware of it,
and neither has Jonathan substantiated it.
JC>I notice you accept Steven Weinberg's opinion as authoritative in
>this area, even though he too is only a physicist and, unlike
>Polkinghorne, not only lacks theological or philosophical training, but
>is also not a Christian. Is this consistent?
Jonathan here is confusing different things. As previously stated, I cited
Weinberg as a mainstream *non-theistic scientist* giving his *outsider's*
opinion of TE/ECs, to support my claim that TE/EC is marginalised in
mainstream science
And moreover I *accepted* Polkinghorne. I said he was "probably a
TE". My point about Polkinghorne was not denying he was a TE but
questioning whether he has made a leading contribution to TE/EC as
Jonathan claimed.
But by Amazon.com's sales ranking criteria, Polkinghorne is less
marginalised than the others, but he is still way below Johnson and
Behe:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Science & Theology : An Introduction by J. C. Polkinghorne
Paperback - 176 pages (January 1999) Fortress Pr; ISBN: 0800631536
; ... Amazon.com Sales Rank: 48,613
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>I would appreciate references to books or journal articles where
all >>the above claimed TE/ECs have argued the case for TE/EC in the
>>scientific community.
JC>Exactly what are you asking for here? TE/EC is a theological issue
>and therefore well argued by these people in the appropriate journals. It
>is not necessary as part of their scientific reporting. Should I write
>about "theistic ore genesis" in a paper about gold deposits, or a
>cosmologist one "theistic stellar evolution"?
Jonathan's claim was that the above were among the "many leading
theologians and scientists who argue for TE/EC." What I am "asking for
here" is *references* to"those books or journal articles where" these
"TE/ECs have argued the case for TE/EC in the scientific community."
If Jonathan cannot supply those references, then I will take it that these
"leading theologians and scientists who argue for TE/EC" have *not*
"argued the case for TE/EC in the scientific community".
If the latter is indeed the case, then Jonathan will have confirmed: 1)
Johnson's point above that "...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 " and that there is no "
scientific topic" for TE/EC "to talk about" with mainstream science";
and 2) my point that TE/EC is marginalised in mainstream science.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood
perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3)
no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life
exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." (Provine W., "Evolution: Free
will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998
Darwin Day Keynote Address.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/provine_abstract.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------