On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:08:03 EDT, MikeBGene@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>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.
MG>Steve replies:
>
>SJ>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!
MG>Steve may have a point here and I think it would be good if people
>like Howard pondered why this is. One can always adopt the
>snobbish attitude (and I am not saying that this is what Howard
>would do) and attribute the popularity of people like Johnson
>and Behe to fundamentalism, but their appeal seems to be broader
>(judging from the many editorials and letters to the
>editor over the last few years).
Howard has indeed in the past tried to link Phil Johnson with
fundamentalism:
"Although the rhetoric Phillip E. Johnson employs in his article "Creator or
Blind Watchmaker?" (FT, January 1993) differs in some details from that
of the "scientific creationists" of North American Christian fundamentalism,
the effect of his pronouncements is the same." (Van Till H.J., "God and
Evolution: An Exchange I," First Things, Vol. 34, June/July 1993, p32.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html#vantill)
MG>I suspect that Johnson is more
>popular because many Christians think that people like Howard
>offer no substantive defense against the atheism of people like Dawkins
>and Gould and instead it's more about not be "embarrassed." Thus, if
>Howard and others want to get their message out, I think they would do
>a far better job of this by taking on people like Dawkins directly and
>ignoring the ID movement.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Howard and TE/ECs generally spend more of their
time attacking their fellow Christians who are creationists/IDers than they do
the atheists! Apart from easing the pressure that could be brought to bear by
TE/ECs against the atheists, Howard and other TE/ECs force those who *are*
criticising the atheists, namely the creationists/IDers, to waste time and
energy defending themselves from the TE/ECs. So TE/ECs are not only
not part of the solution, they are actually part of the problem!
MG>Let me give a simple example. The June 11, 1999 issue of Science
>has a couple of letters where scientists express their disgust with
>the Templeton Foundation's various activities (hardly a hotbed of
>ID). In one letter, it is argued the only relationship between science
>and religion is that science needs to study religion because "it
>has the capacity to objectively analyze religion and to dispel
>illusions necessary for its operation."(-Eric Stone). This letter argues
>that religious faith is to be explained in terms of Darwinian principles.
>
>Now, I've seen these types of letters in various scientific journals and
>how would someone like Howard reply?
Note that Mike has to ask "how *would* someone like Howard reply"?
Not "how *did* someone like Howard reply"? The fact is that TE/ECs like
Howard rarely (if ever) reply to public attacks on Christianity by their non-
theist scientific colleagues, despite being the Christians best equipped to do
so.
To help Howard and other TE/ECs with their "replies", here is Stone's
letter:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion and Science
[...]
Regarding the article on religion and science, no matter how you slice it,
religion will involve supernatural intervention in the universe and blind
allegiance to dogma, two requirements that will be directly opposed to the
scientific method. The only proper relationship between these institutions,
therefore, is for social scientists to study the functioning of religion as a
powerful social institution that evolved to further the interests of its
adherents, which appears to be its primary function. The multitudinous
ways that religion enhances the "fitness" of its followers need to be
catalogued and analyzed. These include reduction of fear and anxiety,
provision of social support, motivational enhancement, and the sense of
security, esteem, and empowerment from belonging to a powerful group
that can bring united action in the face of physical, social, and political
threats. These functions could easily account for the beneficial effects of
religious observance on health (if the latter are replicable). Analysis is also
needed of how the concepts of goodness and god facilitate this function by
providing justification for group power or possibly by disguising the
parochial purpose of religion whose revelation may undermine the
motivation of adherents. These would include determination of whether
goodness, altruism, and forgiveness are the most winning game strategies
for in dividual or group success in advanced social species. Other areas to
be studied are whether all religious arguments of the existence of god
violate the laws of logic and what the strengths and weaknesses of
rationality versus faith as survival strategies in environments of differing
degrees of danger are. Science and religion are in conflict because science
has the capacity to objectively analyze religion and to dispel illusions
necessary for its operation. The Templeton Foundation grants should
therefore be given to social scientists to undertake these studies.
Eric Stone Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of
Medicine, New York, NY, 10022, USA. Email: es35@is4.nyu.edu
[...]
SCIENCE VOL 284 11 JUNE 1999 1773
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we have a good case of metaphysical naturalism, masquerading as
methodological naturalism, being applied to "religion", and in this case
the *Christian* "religion".
Would Howard or any other TE/ECs argue against the consistent application
of science's methodological naturalism to the *Christian* "religion", and
in particular its claims of "supernatural intervention in the universe"?
If Howard or any other TE/EC would so argue, on what grounds would they
argue that the Christian religion be quarantined from such methodological
naturalism which, if consistently applied (as it is in fact by liberal
theologians), would gut it by converting all instances of claimed
supernatural intervention into it mearest naturalistic equivalent?
If they did argue that the Christian religion be quarantined from such
methodological naturalism, would their arguments be undercut by their
other arguments against God intervening in natural history?
MG>How does he remove
>God's intervention in natural history yet maintain God can/has
>intervened in human history?
Good question! Howard criticises the majority of ordinary Christians for
their "interventionism" ("The Fourth Day", 1986, p225), yet that is
*precisely* the sort of God that the Bible reveals.
Howard in attacking creationists for their so-called "interventionism" is
giving a free kick to the metaphysical naturalists who not only deny that
God intervened in natural history, but that he intervened in human history
too!
MG>Would not his "fully-gifted" theology
>lead to the notion that everything about Christian faith and history
>can be explained by the same gifts that gave rise to humans?
Another good question. The same arguments that Howard uses to argue
against God's intervention in natural history, could be used against the
Christian claim that the very same God has intervened in human history.
MG>Is the existence of Christianity just another example of Darwinism-in-
>action? I would be interested in having Howard read Eric Stone's
>letter to _Science_ and seeing how he would reply. Would he
>withdraw further into the subjective or draw the line in the sand?
I too would be interested in seeing Howard's (or any other TE/ECs) reply.
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------