On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:34:56 -0400, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
[...]
>AC>So, bring on the Philip Johnsons. The only people who have
>>anything to fear are those with a vested interest in
>>evolutionary theory as a world view. In that case, Johnson is
>>attacking your religion, and that is another issue altogether.
HVT>No, Art, it's NOT only the preachers of the worldview of evolutionary
>naturalism that take offense at what Johnson says.
I note this unintended compliment to Johnson. At least "the preachers
of the worldview of evolutionary naturalism" realise that what Johnson
is saying is *worth* taking offense at. The evolutionary naturalists
do not consider TE/EC is even worth considering, except as propaganda
for "evolutionary naturalism".!
HVT>Many of us Christians also take offense at seeing Johnson's strident
>anti-evolution rhetoric identified with the Christian faith. It's downright
>embarrassing. It makes Christianity look as if it could be defeated by the
>success of the *scientific* concept of the evolutionary development of
>creaturely forms.
The fact is that *a lot more* ordinary Christians are *very happy* with
Johnson's so-called "anti-evolution rhetoric". This is evident by the
*enormous* number of books Johnson has sold in 9 years (a quarter of
a million), which probably far outweighs all TE/EC books sold combined
in the same period and maybe even all TE/EC books *ever* sold!
HVT>In particular, those of us Christians who see the possibility that the
>Creation may have been so richly gifted by God with the requisite
>formational capabilities to make viable something as remarkable as big-bang
>cosmology and biotic evolution take deep offense at Johnson's labeling this
>as nothing more than the wolf of naturalism in sheep's clothing of theism.
The problem is not that Howard sees "the possibility that the Creation may
have been so richly gifted by God ...to make viable...biotic evolution" and
Johnson doesn't. Phil has said *many* times that he could accept that God
created through "a natural evolutionary process":
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God exists who
could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who might have
chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p14).
What the *real* problem is that *Howard* apparently cannot (or will not) "see
the possibility that the Creation" might *not* "have been so richly gifted by
God ...to make viable...biotic evolution"!
HVT>Yes, Art, Johnson IS thereby attacking my religion. But it is NOT the
>religion of naturalism, it is the Christian religion, which leads me to
>have high expectations of the giftedness of the Creation to which God has
>given being. It is the Christian religion that leads me to look at the
>robust formational economy of the Creation and see it as none other than a
>vivid manifestation of God's creativity (in conceptualizing ro rich a menu
>of formational capabilities) and God's generosity (in God's willingness to
>give such full being to the Creation).
This is an *amazing* admission by Howard that he has identified his personal
theory of how God *might* have created, with "the Christian religion" itself!
It confirms what Johnson (and I) have said about TE/ECs like Howard being
unwittingly under the influence of scientific naturalistic philosophy. Here
Howard has effectively elevated his version of *evolution* to the same
status as "the Christian religion"!
Moreover, Howard has written books and articles attacking the `religion' of
the majority of ordinary Christians who are creationists, well before Johnson
came on the scene. For example, in his 1986 book "The Fourth Day", *five
years* before "Darwin on Trial", Howard disparagingly referred to the
majority view of ordinary Christians on creation as "the quicksand of
interventionism" (Van Till H.J., "The Fourth Day", 1986, p225).
Indeed Howard has disparagingly attacked Johnson's own view of creation
as "a `theokinetic' concept of creation" (Van Till H.J., "God and Evolution:
An Exchange I," First Things, Vol. 34, June/July 1993, p34). It seems that
Howard wants to be able to publicly say what he likes about Johnson's
views, but Johnson is not allowed to criticise Howard's views in return!
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! If Howard wants to
keep publicly arguing for his TE/EC position, and against Johnson's
creationist postion, then Howard should accept without complaint
that Johnson will return the complement!
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------