On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 22:32:17 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
>>KO>I posted this request before, but Stephen simply ignored it
[...] Typo "KO>" corrected with apologies.
>SJ>Kevin wrongly assumes that I "ignored" it. I simply did not see it.
KO>Apparently then Stephen has been "simply ... not seeing" alot of my posts
>lately, considering how many he has not responded to (he even seems to have
>abandoned our thermal protein debate); I thought he just didn't like me
>anymore.
In this case I just ignored Kevin's proliferation of multiple simultaneous posts on
the same thread. I was prepared to debate one post at a time regarding Kevin's
minority views on so-called "thermal proteins", but not multiple posts at a time.
Frankly I have better things to do with my time than debate an origin of life position
that (by Kevin's own admission) most mainstream origin-of-life specialists reject.
>>>KO>...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."
KO>I noticed that he did not answer my request, however. In point 4 he simply
>reiterated his demand for rational discussion without explaining what he
>meant by rational discussion. Unless what he means by rational discussion is
>for his opponant to admit defeat and declare that Stephen was right all along.
[...]
I *did* answer Kevin's request below, namely: "what evidence or argument
would" I "accept as proof that" I am "wrong"?
>>KO>For example, what
>>>evidence or argument would he accept as proof that he is wrong?
>SJ>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:
KO>Except that if any "TE/EC" did what Stephen demands he or she would be
>admitting that Stephen was right. Perhaps Stephen misunderstood me, but I
>did not ask him what "TE/ECs" had to do to admit that they had been "taken
>'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific
>materialism-naturalism". My question was what argument or evidence would
>Stephen accept that would convince him that "TE/ECs" were **NOT** "taken
>'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific
>materialism-naturalism". In other words, I want Stephen to tell us how we
>can convince him:
Kevin asked the question: "...what evidence or argument would he
[Stephen] accept as proof that he is wrong?" I gave a list of *seven* lines
of "evidence or argument" that I "would...accept as proof that" I am
"wrong".
SJ>1. were willing to frankly acknowledge that scientific materialism-
>>naturalism *was* a hollow and deceptive philosophy;
KO>that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is not "a hollow and deceptive
>philosophy";
Kevin first asks me "what evidence or argument would" I "accept as proof
that" I am "wrong", about my claim that "TE/ECs have to varying degrees
been taken `captive by [a] hollow and deceptive philosophy'" (Col 2:8), and
when I gave *seven* lines of "evidence or argument", Kevin tries to reword
them!!!
I am not prepared to accept Kevin's extraordinary rewording of *my*
answers to his question! Indeed I take this as strong confirmation of my
thesis that "TE/ECs have to varying degrees been taken `captive by [a]
hollow and deceptive philosophy'" (Col 2:8), that Kevin cannot even
address my answers to his question, but must try to modify them!
I have deleted the rest of Kevin's invalid rewording of *my* lines of
"evidence or argument" and repeat them again below for Kevin or any
other TE/EC to address (I note that Jonathan has tried and I will respond
to his post).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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';
[...]
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------