On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:56:50 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
>SJ>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"!
KM>I posted this request before, but Stephen simply ignored it
Kevin wrongly assumes that I "ignored" it. I simply did not see it. I have
found the message in one of my received folders. t seems to have slipped
through my filters. I have tightened up my filters so it shouldn't happen
again.
KM>so I will post
>it again, since he has raised the issue again:
>
>I for one would appreciate it if Stephen would be gracious enough to explain
>how we "TE/ECs" should "rationally discuss" his assesment that we have been
>"taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely
>scientific materialism-naturalism", such that "the 'E' part of 'TE/EC'"
>controls "the Christian 'T' part." For example, what evidence or argument
>would he accept as proof that he is wrong?
Thanks to Kevin for asking! I would be prepared to reconsider my claim
that "TE/ECs...have" to varying degrees "been taken `captive' by a `hollow
and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), if TE/ECs:
1. were willing to frankly acknowledge that scientific materialism-
naturalism *was* a hollow and deceptive philosophy;
2. admitted that as scientists, trained in scientific institutions dominated by
scientific materialism-naturalism, there was at least a *possibility* that their
thinking had (perhaps unknowingly) been adversely influenced by scientific
materialism-naturalism;
3. acknowledged that as Theistic Evolutionists, the very name of there
position is prima facie evidence that TE/ECs are trying to combine the two
competing philosophies of Christian theism and scientific materialism-
naturalism;
4. were prepared to: a) rationally discuss the possible influence of scientific
materialism-naturalism on their thinking, b) be prepared to listen to
Christian apologists and ID critiques of scientific materialism-naturalism; c)
be prepared to identify evidence of scientific materialism-naturalism
influence on their thinking (eg. anti-supernaturalism, anti-creationism, pro-
evolutionism, etc); and be prepared to diminish and eventually give up
scientific materialism-naturalism.
5. show they are open to and in principle not opposed to Christian
supernaturalism by: a) being seriously open to the real possibility that God
might have intervened supernaturally in life's history (that as Christians they
would admit He has in human history); and b) by supporting, or at least not
opposing, creationists and ID theorists.
6. start being even-handed by criticising publicly the atheist/agnostic
scientific materialist-naturalists to the same degree that they criticise their
fellow Christians who are creationists and IDers.
7. show that they are decisively under the control of Christianity by: a)
stopping their sub-Christian ad hominem comments about their fellow
Christians who are creationists (eg. Mike Behe being a "liar", Johnson
being "only a lawyer", etc); and b) starting to show that Christian `blood' is
thicket than scientific materialism- naturalism `water';
KM>Considering what Stephen said in the first paragraph above, however, I do
>not see that he would ever admit he is wrong, since even if we "TE/ECs" were to
>rationally and calmly discuss his assesment that we have been "taken
>'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific
>materialism-naturalism"
Which is an admission that TE/ECs haven't yet rationally and calmly
discussed my assesment that they have been taken captive by the hollow
and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8) that is scientific materialism-
naturalism!
KM>he could still reject our arguments and evidence on
>the basis that we "may not realise" that we have been "taken 'captive'",
>since it is "after all, a *deceptive* philosophy".
Kevin seems to have little confidence in his "arguments and evidence"!
Why doesn't he just post them and see what happens?
KM>In other words, as long
>as Stephen believes that we have been "taken 'captive'" and that we "may" not
>realize it, I do not see what we could possibly say that would make him
>change his mind.
See above. I have said publicly that I am prepared to change my mind on
this if TE/ECs can show that they have not been taken "captive through [a]
hollow and deceptive philosophy..." (Col 2:8), namely scientific
materialism-naturalism, by meeting my seven conditions above.
I believe these are reasonable conditions that any Christian should have no
trouble agreeing with-*unless* they are under the strong influence of the
philosophy of scientific materialism-naturalism. The ball is now in the
TE/ECs court!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not think that Darwinism can explain the origin of life. I think it quite
possible that life is so extremely improbable that nothing can `explain' why
it originated; for statistical explanation must operate, in the last instance,
with very high probabilities. But if our high probabilities are merely low
probabilities which have become high because of the immensity of the
available time (as in Boltzmann's `explanation'; see text to note 260 in
section 35), then we must not forget that in this way it is possible to
"explain" almost everything. Even so, we have little enough reason to
conjecture that any explanation of this sort is applicable to the origin of
life." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography",
[1974], Open Court: La Salle, Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p167)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------