On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:05:51 -0400 (EDT), Loren Haarsma wrote:
[...]
>>LH>Obviously, there can be no "naturalistic" explanation of the
Incarnation.
>SJ> The simple fact is that there *are*, "by radical theologians like
>>Tillich and Bultmann, and the so-called `Jesus School'" who consistently
>>carry out Loren's canon of preferring a naturalistic explanation to
>>everything (ie. methodological naturalism), to the Bible.
LH>To call perferring-a-naturalistic-explanation-to-everything "Loren's
>canon" is, plain and simple, bearing false witness.
Not really. The commandment against "bearing false witness [lit. "false
testimonty]" (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20) is when one *intentionally* and
*maliciously* tells a *lie* about someone else, *knowing it to be false*
(see other usages of the term at Ex 23:1; Dt 19:16,18; Pr 6:19; 12:17;
14:5, etc).
If one tells what he thinks is the *truth*, yet he is wrong, then that is only a
*mistake*. I have observed that TE/ECs (and indeed evolutionists
generally) are very quick to assume *moral* wrong (ie. a lie) of creationists
rather than assuming only *intellectual* wrong (ie. a mistake). I don't tell lies
and in this case I don't believe I made a mistake either. See below.
LH>I have made clear, in MANY posts, that I do NOT prefer a naturalistic
>explanation to everything, and I do NOT think that methodological
>naturalism is a necessary prerequisite to science or anything else.
I have been debating Loren and reading his posts on the Reflector for the
best part of 4 years. My observation of Loren is that he does not like to
appear dogmatic like his fellow TE/ECs and absolutely rule out *in theory*
God acting supernaturally in life's history. But *in practice* Loren *always
does* conclude that God did not act supernaturally in life's history,
irrespective of the evidence.
Loren reminds me of a case I heard about a Pakistani manager over here in
Western Australia who said he really believed in equal opportunity for all.
Yet he recruited nothing but Pakistanis! Whenever he was accused of being
prejudiced towards Pakistanis he grew quite indignant and protested that
he was not biased but in each case a Pakistani was the best applicant. Over
time his branch of about 50 workers became 100% Pakistani! Not even
*once* was a non-Pakistani employed by him. Yet he maintained
indignantly that he was not prejudiced one way or the other. Needless to
say he was eventually fired because his superiors judged that if he really
believed that he was not prejudiced towards Pakistanis, and yet he always
came down in favour of a Pakistani, then he must be totally unaware of his
own biases and unsuitable as a manager.
Loren might indignantly protest that he is not biased against God acting
supernaturally in life's history, but if he *always* comes down in favour of
a naturalistic explanation, no matter how weak the evidence is for that
naturalistic explanation, then it is open for a reasonable person to conclude
that Loren is probably biased against supernatural explanations, but is not
aware of it.
BTW if Loren is shocked at this conclusion, as a scientists he shouldn't be.
The whole rationale for science demanding verification by repeatable
experiment is that it has learned the hard way that individual scientists (like
other mere mortals) are not always aware of their biases.
>>LH>I offered a few reasons why a Christian -- a Christian who firmly
>>>believes in the Incarnation (and other miraculous acts of God) -- could
>>>also believe that God accomplished one PARTICULAR thing, the
>>>formation of first life, via design-for-self-assembly and governance of
>>>natural laws.
>SJ> The real question is, if Loren is "a Christian who firmly believes in
>>the Incarnation (and other miraculous acts of God)", why does he
>>rule out apriori the possibility that God might have acted supernaturally
>>in "the formation of first life"?
LH>No, the real question is this: Even though I made it explicitly and
>PAINFULLY clear in my earlier post (and in many previous posts) that I
>do NOT rule out apriori the possibility that God might have acted
>supernaturally in the formation of first life---even though I made it
>explicitly and painfully clear that I accept miraculous creation of first life
>as a viable option---why does Steve Jones claim that I said the exact
>opposite?
Why? Because while Loren may not *in theory* "rule out apriori the
possibility that God might have acted supernaturally in the formation of
first life", *in practice* he always *does* come down on the side of some
fully naturalistic "formation of first life" (and everything else in life's
history), so I conclude, in the teeth of Loren's vehement denials, that Loren
really does "rule out apriori the possibility that God might have acted
supernaturally in the formation of first life" (and everything else in life's
history), but may, like that Pakistani manager, not be aware of it.
Here's a simple test. If Loren can give *one* example in life's history from
(and including) "the formation of first life" where he has in fact come down
in favour of God acting supernaturally, over against competing naturalistic
evolutionary explanations, I invite him to post it. If Loren cites the infusion
of man's soul, that is not strictly speaking a competing naturalistic
evolutionary explanation, so I would like to hear his *second* example!
This is one case where I would be *overjoyed* if Loren proves me wrong!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------