On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:55:40 +1000, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
I received two posts with the same title and first and last lines, but different
times from Jonathan. I have not compared them line by line but I assume
they are the same. I am here responding to the later one.
JC>Stephen E. Jones wrote:
Before this I also wrote:
SJ>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:
>SJ>1. were willing to frankly acknowledge that scientific materialism-
>>naturalism *was* a hollow and deceptive philosophy;
JC>Of course, with the proviso that my understanding of what comprises
>"scientific materialism-naturalism" might differ from yours in some respects.
Before we go any further, I would appreciate it if Jonathan would state
what: a) his "understanding of what comprises `scientific materialism-
naturalism'" is and b) what he assumes mine is.
Since at the end Jonathan gives his score, I will indicate how I score Jonathan's
addressing of my criteria. Here I cannot yet give Jonathan a score on this one
(#1 = 0).
>SJ>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;
JC>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.
Good. We may be making progress!
I will score on this one (#2 = 1).
Having established that TE/ECs are at least are "potentially unwittingly influenced
by" scientific materialism-naturalism, I would appreciate Jonathan posting examples
of where TE/ECs *in particular* have "carefully tried to identify these influences" of
scientific materialism-naturalism and where and how they have "respond[ed]
accordingly"?
>>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;
JC>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.
I will score on this one (#3 = 0).
The fact is that Christian theism and naturalistic evolution *are* two
diametrically opposed philosophies. To try to combine the "theistic" and
the "evolution" of each system will end up with the "two masters" problem
of Mt 6:24. As Jesus said, when a man tries to "serve two masters", one
ends up dominant. And in our culture, as Johnson points out, it is the
*naturalistic* master who usually becomes dominant:
"If a fundamentalism that is at odds with genuine scientific knowledge is
the only apparent alternative, blurring the issues a little to save a place for
theistic religion in a naturalistic intellectual culture may seem like a sound
strategy. Of course, I do not agree with that strategy. I do not think that
the mind can serve two masters, and I am confident that whenever the
attempt is made, naturalism in the end will be the true master and theism
will have to abide by its dictates." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
pp169-170)
The problem is that if "theistic evolution" *is* a "hollow and deceptive
philosophy" (Col 2:8) then the fact that TE/ECs did "not see that" it was,
would be no argument against it. The test of whether TE/ECs is a true or
false philosophy is in its "fruit" (Mt 7:16-20). And the fruit of most (if not
all) TE/ECs on this Reflector over 4 years is profoundly sub-Christian if
not anti-Christian:
a. TE/ECs routinely attack their Christian brothers who are creationists
with anger and ad hominems. And other TE/ECs do not seem to recognise
it *is* sub-Christian;
b. TE/ECs rarely (if ever) attack the positions of naturalistic evolutionists
(NEs) and certainly not their persons, as they do with their creationist
Christian brothers.
c. NEs on this list rarely argue with TE/ECs. The pervasive pattern is
usually *both* NEs and TE/ECs agreeing with each other and arguing with
creationists.
JC>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.
As I have posted previously on this Reflector, this routine confusing by
TE/ECs of the *origin* of something with its ongoing maintenance, blurs
the Christian doctrines of Creation "God's Originating Work" (Erickson
M.J., "Christian Theology", 1988, p365) and Providence "God's
Continuing Work" (Erickson M.J., 1988, p387). It is in fact more evidence
for my thesis that TE/ECs are under the controlling influence of naturalistic
categories of thinking.
>SJ>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.
JC>In my case yes.
I will score on this one (#4 = 1).
This is encouraging! Perhaps Jonathan could start rationally discussing the
possible influence of scientific materialism-naturalism on his thinking?
>SJ>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.
JC>(a) Yes
More encouragement! If Jonathan is *really* "seriously open to the real
possibility that God might have intervened supernaturally in life's history"
what type of evidence would it take for Jonathan to believe that God *has*
"intervened supernaturally in life's history"?
JC>(b) Yes, and this includes that correcting them in they err in fact and
>reasoning.
I have no problem whatsoever with "correcting...creationists and ID
theorists..." when "they err in fact and reasoning".
But I will be interested to see if Jonathan does in fact "support...creationists
and ID theorists" on this List over and against the attacks of NEs and other
TE/ECs.
Since this was for Jonathan to "show", not just *say*, I will score this
point (#5 = 0) at this stage.
>SJ>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.
JC>I try to.
I am unaware of any such instances where Jonathan has on this List criticised
"publicly the atheist/agnostic scientific materialist-naturalists". Can
Jonathan please post examples of same?
Pending Jonathan's clarification of the above, I will score this (#6 = 0).
>SJ>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';
JC>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.
This is still arguably a form of the ad hominem argument, namely the
"argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)":
"Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial)....This time, the argument is
not an assault on the man's character, but on some special circumstances
surrounding him." (Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason:
An Introduction to Logical Thinking", 1996, p94)
No one would object to criticisms of Johnson's "information", but I am not
aware of any. I have refuted Glenn and Howard's claim that Johnson didn't
know that the ancestral mammal was not a literal "rodent" but they keep
making it, which is confirmation that their real agenda is an ad hominem
attempt to discredit Johnson.
As for Johnson's "reasoning", Johnson has a very high (if not genius) IQ,
which is shown by him being accepted into Harvard without finishing High
School and then later topping the University of Chicago Law School.
When critics criticise Johnson's "reasoning" it is usually the critics'
"reasoning" that is at fault in not understanding the depth and brilliance of
Johnson's arguments.
As for Johnson's "competence in a particular area" this is often made by
scientists (eg. astronomers, geophysicists, etc) who have no special claim
to "competence" in evolutionary biology either! Johnson would always
agree (he says this on his tapes) that we are bound to accept the *facts*
presented by a scientists in his particular field. But the problem is rarely
with the actual facts, but the scientists *interpretation* of the facts, which
in turn is a product of the scientist's materialist-naturalist *philosophy*.
In addition to the philosophical problem of interpretation, another problem
in evolution in particular is that the evidence for evolution spans a number
of disciplines and few (if any) scientists are expert in all of them. As
Johnson points out, "a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another
layman":
"Before undertaking this task I should say something about my
qualifications and purpose. I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by
profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and
identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This
background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people
believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of
logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make. Being a scientist
is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like
evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves
issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity highly
specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another
layman." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp13-14)
>JC>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.
This is fallacious. No one denies that in any highly technical area of science
and law, the technical expertise of a practitioner in the relevant discipline
should be given great, even decisive weight, as Johnson himself
acknowledges:
"CJ: So, your outside perspective coming at the problem from a
background in law has been a real benefit to you, while you've also had to
deal with the criticism you've taken for not being a scientist?
Phil: That's right. It's really within my field. Biologists who spend their
lifetimes studying biology will be legitimate authorities, obviously, on the
details of what they've learned in that investigation, and an outsider can't
really challenge that, but an outsider definitely can challenge their thinking,
particularly when it turns out that they believe in what they believe in not
because of what they know as biologists, but in spite of what they know as
biologists. It's a philosophical movement based on materialism. And they
say, "Well, materialism--that's science and that's our philosophy, and you
should believe it because we believe it." At this point, you know, they're
not entitled to any particular respect because they are not telling you what
they know as biological specialists. They're telling you the prejudice that
dominates the their field. So, that's a thinking issue, and it's really more
within my discipline than it's within theirs." (Lawrence J. "Communique
Interview: Phillip E. Johnson," Communique: A Quarterly Journal, Spring,
1999. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/commsp99.htm)
But rarely is it the scientific *facts* which are at issue, and rarely are the
scientists who are expert in a particular field in total agreement.
Moreover, in the case of evolution the facts span a number of disciplines.
In fact mostly the arguments are about the *interpretation* of the scientific
facts, and that can involve issues of philosophy and theology, which few
scientists, if any, have expertise in.
I would have thought that Johnson's "specialty in analyzing the logic of
arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments"
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp13-14) is more relevant in the
field of biological evolution, with its heavy reliance on philosophical and
even theological arguments, than the expertise of *astronomers* like
Howard and *geophysicists* like Glenn who are prominent in this
"Johnson is a lawyer" ad hominem!
JC>Of course we must always be careful to treat others with courtesy, even
>if they do not reciprocate.
The fact is that most of the TE/ECs on this List don't "treat others with
courtesy" if those "others" are their Christian brothers who are creationists.
This is so pervasive among TE/ECs on this List that it is itself a fact which
cries out for an explanation. The explanation is readily apparent in Jesus'
warning to Christians about "serving two masters" (Mt 6:24) and Paul's
waring to Christians not to become "captive through a hollow and
deceptive philosophy" (Col. 2:8).
Again this was a "show" not *say* criteria. I will score this (#7 = 0).
JC>Hmm, 5 out of 7.
Not by my reckoning above. Total score above was (#1 = 0; #2 = 1; #3 = 0;
#4 = 1; #5 = 0; #6 = 0) = 2 out of 7.
I would appreciate Jonathan itemising which criteria he thinks he met that
I scored 0.
But at least Jonathan was prepared to address these criteria, and that is
better than his fellow TE/ECs did! I thanks him for it.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for
their facility in devising plausible stories; but they often forget that plausible
stories need not be true." (Gould S.J., Raup D.M., Sepkoski J.J., Jr.,
Schopf T.J.M., & Simberloff D.S., ", "The shape of evolution: a
comparison of real and random clades", Paleobiology, 1977, Vol. 3, pp34-
35)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------