On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:21:01 -0500 (CDT) Susan B wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Darwinists have used Darwinian evolution as a vehicle to disseminate
their >>materialist-naturalist philosophy in public schools for decades,
cleverly >>using the separation of church and State provisions of the USA
>>constitution to foist their own secular religion on the majority of
Americans >>who are creationist.
SB>Since Steven is so fond of quotes here is one for him to chew on:
My point was that "*Darwinists* have used Darwinian evolution as a
vehicle to disseminate their materialist-naturalist philosophy in public
schools..."
Whether the Pope believes in evolution does not change that fact one iota.
SB>"It is indeed remarkable that [The Theory of Evolution] has progressively
>taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries
>made in different spheres of knowledge.
>
>"The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies
>undertaken independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant
>argument in favour of this theory."--Pope John Paul, Oct. 24, 1996
>
>you can read the whole thing at: >http://christusrex.org/www1/news/10-
96/es10-24-96.html
Thanks to Susan for the reference but it is just a *report*, not the full text
of what the Pope said. There are a number of web sites which have the full
text of what the Pope said. For example, here is a link to it in First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/johnpaul.html
The context is the Pope's Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
on 22 October 1996. The Academy had decided to discuss the theme of
"the origins of life and evolution" the Pontiff's words were probably
intended to draw limits to what it was permissible for Catholic scientists to
believe.
SB>The Pope can hardly be considered a "materialist/naturalist"!
I don't know anything about the Pope, but I presume that he is not a
"materialist/naturalist".
But then I never said the Pope was one of the "Darwinists" who "have used
Darwinian evolution as a vehicle to disseminate their materialist-naturalist
philosophy in public schools..."
Quite frankly, as a Protestant it is irrelevant to me what the Pope believes
about Evolution. That the Roman Catholic church had long since accepted
some form of `theistic evolution' is old news.
SB>How does Johnson respond to the Pope's remarks?
AFAIK Johnson has only mentioned them briefly in passing:
"The centerpiece of Gould's essay is an analysis of the complete text of
Pope John Paul's statement of October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy
of Sciences endorsing evolution as "more than a hypothesis." He fails to
quote the Pope's crucial qualification that "theories of evolution which, in
accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as
emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of
this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." Of course, a theory
based on materialism assumes by definition that there is no "spirit" active in
this world that is independent of matter. Gould knows this perfectly
well...Gould's essay is a tissue of half-truths aimed at putting the religious
people to sleep, or luring them into a "dialogue" on terms set by the
materialists. Thus Gould graciously allows religion to participate in
discussions of morality or the meaning of life, because science does not
claim authority over such questions of value, and because "Religion is too
important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the
comfort still sought by many folks from theology." Gould insists, however,
that all such discussion must cede to science the power to determine the
facts, and one of the facts is an evolutionary process that is every bit as
materialistic and purposeless for Gould as it is for Lewontin or Dawkins. If
religion wants to accept a dialogue on those terms, that's fine with Gould-
but don't let those religious people think they get to make an independent
judgment about the evidence that supposedly supports the "facts." And if
the religious people are gullible enough to accept materialism as one of the
facts, they won't be capable of causing much trouble." (Johnson P.E., "The
Unraveling of Scientific Materialism," First Things, 77, November 1997,
pp22-25. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html)
SB>How does he account for the fact that Catholic schools have taught
>evolution since the 1960s even though their philosophical foundation
>can hardly be called "materialist/naturalist"?
I don't know that Johnson would be *bothered* to "account for the fact
that Catholic schools have taught evolution since the 1960s".
That "Catholic schools" (and Protestant schools for that matter) "have
taught evolution since the 1960s" is *irrelevant* to my claim that:
"Darwinists have used Darwinian evolution as a vehicle to disseminate their
materialist-naturalist philosophy in public schools ...using the separation of
church and State provisions of the USA constitution to foist their own
secular religion on the majority of Americans who are creationist".
Even fundamentalist Christian schools "have taught evolution". Up till this
Kansas Board's decision, AFAIK, they have been *required* to teach
evolution if they are to receive government funding and accreditation.
SB>even though their philosophical foundation can hardly be called
>"materialist/naturalist"?
I don't know the what the "philosophical foundation" of "Catholic schools"
in America is these days. As I understand it, many Christian schools and
colleges (both Catholic and Protestant) have secularised, and some of the
teachers are not even Christians. Furthermore, again as I understand it,
many Christian faculty are theistic evolutionists and teach some form of
evolution with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
But they are, in the main, *accommodating* to evolution, not using it "as a
vehicle to disseminate...materialist-naturalist philosophy.
SB>And why don't you ever answer my questions?
Since I have answered many of Susan's "questions" in the past, and in fact
am answering some of them now, I presume this is just hyperbole?
Maybe what Susan really means that I don't *always* answer *every*
questions she asks?
If the latter is the case, I explained at the beginning, "I probably will not
have time to read all the Reflector messages, or even answer all messages
addressed to me":
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: I'm back! Stephen Jones (sejones@ibm.net) Wed, 09 Jun 1999
05:01:34 +0800
[...]
I was a member of this list from 1995 till 1998, when I found that I could
not keep up with the demands of another list that I am on. I am still
extensively involved in that other list, so I probably will not have time to
read all the Reflector messages, or even answer all messages addressed to
me. Also, I like to research issues before making my replies, and include
quotes, so if I do reply I may be late. I haven't got the time to get involved
in long-drawn out, person-to-person, debates (as in the past), so I will post
all my messages to the group. Mostly my involvement will be posting of
articles: a) casting doubt on evolution in general and Darwinism in
particular; and b) supporting creation in general and Intelligent Design in
particular.
[...]
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199906/0086.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Because the majority of active participants on the list are evolutionists
(naturalistic or theistic) and I am a creationist, I tend to get multiple
responses to most things I post. I would *love* to answer them all and in
fact I once used to, but this itself used to draw criticism. So I have found
from (sometimes bitter) experience on this Reflector that I cannot please
everybody, and nowadays I don't even try!
Because of the multiple responses I receive, because I am on another busy
list, because I like to research subjects in depth, and because I need to keep
my happy marriage intact(!), I have to prioritise what messages I respond
to. So I tend to ignore the less substantial responses. I regret that means
that some questions that I am asked I leave unanswered.
But if Susan has important questions that she thinks I am ignoring, then she
can ask them again another time. These debates tend to go around in
circles so the opportunity will arise many times!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reduced to the initial and still crude form in which it is now emerging in
the modern world, the new religious spirit appears, as we have said (cf. I),
as the impassioned vision and anticipation of some super-mankind ... To
believe and to serve was not enough: we now find that it is becoming not
only possible but imperative literally to love evolution." (Teilhard de
Chardin P., "Christianity and Evolution", 1971, pp183-184, in Bird W.R.,
"The Origin of Species Revisited", Regency: Nashville TN, Vol. II, 1991,
p264)
--------------------------------------------------------------------