On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 18:48:08 -0400 (EDT), Loren Haarsma wrote:
>SJ>Here is the text of a Catholic priest's sermon from Kansas that was posted
>>on another list I am on.....
>>
>>I particularly like the following:
>>
>>"Yes indeed, problems with Christian belief generally arise when
>>"evolution" is loosely used in a broad philosophical sense. This meaning is
>>substantially different from the scientific one. It may be defined as follows:
>>"an ideological frame of mind which sees the entire universe in terms of
>>matter-in-development and which consciously denies the existence of
>>spiritual or supernatural reality; all phenomena--scientific, historical,
>>economic, and social--are explainable in exclusively material terms." This
>>understanding of "evolution" is not scientific, though it derives much
>>prestige from association with the sciences. It is not founded on
>>experimental knowledge or rational deduction. It is rather a preconceived
>>set of attitudes and values, a prejudice that is not merely unscientific, but
>>irrational."
>>
>>It seems to me that most (if not all) TE/ECs on this Reflector hold (at least in
>>part) this "ideological frame of mind" and this is the root cause of their
>>conflict with their creationist Christian brothers, and indeed with their own
>>Christian beliefs (Mat 6:24).
LH>Most (if not all) TE/ECs on this Reflector frequently say that they do NOT
>share this "ideological frame of mind."
Even if "all) TE/ECs on this Reflector" did "frequently *say* that
they do NOT share this "ideological frame of mind", that does not mean
they don't. If TE/ECs have in fact been taken "captive through [a] hollow
and deceptive philosophy..." (Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-
naturalism, then they may not realise it. It is, after all, a *deceptive*
philosophy that the Apostle Paul was warning Christians about.
There is a prima facie case that TE/ECs are candidates for Paul's warning
because their very name indicates they are trying to combine the opposites
of naturalistic evolution with Christian theism. That TE/ECs refuse to even
consider it could be true, and react with anger and ad hominems, rather
than discussing it calmly and rationally is evidence that they *have* been
taken "captive through [a] hollow and deceptive philosophy"!
LH>Most (if not all) TE/ECs on this Reflector take great pains, again and
>again, to carefully explain what they TRULY believe, and to explain how
>what they believe differs from broad philosophical evolutionism.
This is simply not true. It is *almost impossible* to get TE/ECs "to
carefully explain what they TRULY believe" regarding TE/EC and how
"what they believe differs from broad philosophical evolutionism..
To prove I am wrong on this, I invite Loren to state briefly (without asking
them) what he understand each "TE/ECs on this Reflector...TRULY believes",
about TE/EC and how "what they believe differs from broad philosophical
evolutionism..
LH>Despite this, you repeatedly launch the same false accusations.
If Loren thinks it is "false" let him *show* where it is "false", rather than
continually trying to `shoot the messenger'! The more he blusters the more I
am convinced that what I say is true.
LH>THIS is the root cause of your personal conflict with so many
>TE/ECs on this list -- not to mention quite a few PCs on this list.
Loren tries to trivialise this as just a personal conflict". But the fact is that:
TE/ECs have these conflicts with *other* creationists (like Phil Johnson,
for example). Johnson remarked in Darwin on Trial how it was surprising
to him how the TE/ECs attacked him and his book from the outset, even
though in the first edition of DoT he said almost nothing about TE:
"Ironically, while my critique of Darwinism and scientific naturalism has
gained a hearing in secular academic debates, it has met with surprising
resistance from theistic evolutionists in the Christian academic world. That
many Christian college and seminary professors are ardent defenders of
Darwinism may seem astonishing, but it is true. There are many reasons for
this, including the powerful indoctrination aspiring professors receive in
graduate schools. " (Johnson P.E., "Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of
Darwin," Christianity Today, Vol. 38, No. 12, October 24, 1994, p26)
There are *two* "PCs" AFAIK who take the side of the TE/ECs on this
issue. Some of this could be misunderstanding. Or it could be friendship
with TE/ECs. Or it could be fellow scientists sticking together. Or it could
be that some "PCs" have also, to some extent, been made captive to
scientific materialist-naturalist philosophy. I don't necessary claim they
have, but neither do I claim that it *only* applies to TE/ECs. I don't know
enough about the PC's views in question, because I have not debated
enough with them for me to make an assessment.
LH>Truly, I am utterly sick and tired of having this ... this ... whatever it
>is. It ain't a conversation, that's for sure.
I agree with Loren that it "ain't a conversation". I am *trying* to make it "a
conversation"! It is the *TE/ECs* who are doing everything they can (ie.
ad hominems, shoot the messenger, refusal tom read my posts, etc) rather
than have "a conversation"!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible framework for
testable scientific theories." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual
Autobiography", [1974], Open Court: La Salle, Ill., Revised Edition, 1982,
p168)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------