> 1. were willing to frankly acknowledge that scientific materialism-
> naturalism *was* a hollow and deceptive philosophy;
Of course, with the proviso that my understanding of what comprises
"scientific
materialism-
naturalism" might differ from yours in some respects.
> 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;
>
Again, of course. We are all potentially unwittingly influenced by all
sorts of
things. However, most Christians in science I know have carefully tried
to
identify
these influences and respond accordingly. Being mere mortals we may not
be
completely successful but we do try.
> 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;
>
As I have said before I dislike the term "theistic evolution" because of
the very
confusion that your statement highlights. However, I do not see that
those
who are
labelled or identify themselves as theistic evolution are necessarily
combining two
competing philosophies. In my case I see God as sovereign creating by
biological
evolution just as He is by plate tectonics, stellar evolution, magmatic
differentiation, conception and embryo development, and all the other
creative
processes we see in the world.
> 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.
In my case yes.
> 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.
>
(a) Yes
(b) Yes, and this includes that correcting them in they err in fact and
reasoning.
> 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.
I try to.
>
>
> 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';
>
We should all avoid attacks of the dreaded ad hominems. However, there
is
a
difference between a personal attack on a person and a criticism of a
person's
information, reasoning, or even competence in a particular area.
Johnson
is "only a
lawyer" in the area of science as I am "only a scientist" in the area of
law. I
would be justifiably attacked by lawyers for offering a public legal
opinion (and
lucky if that is all that happened) as a mere scientist.
Of course we must always be careful to treat others with courtesy, even
if
they do
not reciprocate.
>
Hmm, 5 out of 7.
God Bless
Jonathan