On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:53:45 -0400 Howard J. Van Till wrote:
HVT>Commenting on why Phil Johnson sells more books than do "people like
>Howard," Mike (last name?) said:
>
>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."
[...]
HVT>In the context of that commitment, the focus of my concern has always been
>the Christian community. It has always been my desire to provide something
>of value to my fellow Christians. In that context I have been candid in my
>critical evaluation of episodic creationism (both the young-Earth variety
>and the Intelligent Design variety)
Howard reveals his prejudice in the pejorative terms he uses. What Howard
calls "episodic creationism" is just plain *mere* creationism. If Howard's
version of creationism is "evolutionary creationism" and "young-Earth" and
"Intelligent Design" is "episodic creationism" then what is *plain vanilla*
"creationism"? It seems that according to Howard, ordinary creationism
doesn't really exist?
HVT>for a number of reasons, including
>these: (1) its anti-evolution strategy is based on a rarely examined
>assumption that in order to "make a difference" God's creative work must
>include episides of form-imposing divine intervention. exist?
Howard's prejudice continues to be revealed in his words. He routinely
uses words like "coerced" and "form imposing" when referring to God
intervening in His own creation, even though this has been pointed out to
hi,. So Howard's pejorative choice of words is *deliberate* and shows that
to Howard the idea of God's intervening is repugnant to him for some deep
reason. Walter Bradley claims that "Van Till's...aversion to any
"intervention" by God...borders on a deistic world view":"
"Van Till's strong preference for a nature that evolves bases on its
properties (or giftedness) and his aversion to any "intervention" by God, his
gapless economy, borders on a deistic world view." (Bradley W.L.,
"Response to Howard J. Van Till", in Moreland J.P. & Reynolds J.M., eds.,
"Three Views on Creation and Evolution", 1999, p224).
Phil Johnson says:
"Persons who have boldly promoted scientific naturalism as a worldview
would look as foolish as all those Marxists who assured us that the
worldwide triumph of their system was inevitable. Christian intellectuals
might reasonably worry that such a possibility sounds too good to be true,
but wouldn't you expect them at least to think that it was good?...I don't
blame theistic evolutionists for being initially skeptical of suggestions that
biology is replete with evidence of than "guiding intelligence at work."
Being careful not to believe something just because we want to believe it is
the very essences of the scientific method. What is surprising is that some
theistic evolutionists seem to dislike the idea of design in biology so much
that they do not bother to conceal their hope that the whole concept is
discredited as soon as possible, preferably without a fair hearing. Why?
One reason is that theistic evolutionists have a lot invested in the claim that
science and Christian theism are compatible, find the recognition of
evidence for intelligent design raises the prospect of a renewed conflict that
they wish to avoid. Another reason is that some theistic evolutionists have
so successfully incorporated evolution and methodological naturalism into
their theology that criticism of these doctrines seems almost heretical to
them."
(Johnson P.E., "Reflection 2", in Moreland J.P. & Reynolds J.M., eds.,
"Three Views on Creation and Evolution", 1999, p275)
HVT>Proponents are free,
>of course, to build their case against evolution on that platform, but I
>think it deserves explicit warranting.
Here Howard takes "evolution" as the default position and that the "case"
against it require special "warranting". This shows his probably
unconscious naturalistic bias. For *Christians* who have not been trained
in modern science's naturalistic ways of thinking, it is *evolution* which
requires special and "explicit warranting".
Darwinists have claimed that "Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins and that "evolution is the greatest
engine for atheism that the world has ever seen" (Provine). While it is of
course possible that the Christian God would create a world in such a way
that an atheist would think it was safe for him not to believe in Him, a
Christian who is not influenced by naturalistic ways of thinking, would find
this counterintuitive, to say the least!
It is a maxim in science that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence". To most Christians not influenced by naturalistic ways of
thinking, the proposition that God created in such a fully naturalistic way
that atheists thought it safe not to believe in God, is an extraordinary claim
which requires extraordinary evidence.
HVT> (2) it (especially the ID version)
>fails to distinguish "design" (as thoughtful conceptualization for the
>accomplishment of a purpose, an act of Mind) from "extranatural assembly"
>(the form-imposing action of an extranatural agent, the action of a
>"hand").
This is Howard's own private emasculated definition of "design". As
I have pointed out to Howard on this Reflector, even the dictionary
definition of "design" includes not only the conceiving of a plan but
also it's *execution*.
For example, as I have pointed out before, the online Webster's dictionary
(http://www.mw.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) includes the following meanings
for the noun and verb form of the word "design".
First, the noun form (according to the Dictionary the *secondary* meaning
of "design") includes not only "2 : a mental project or scheme in which
means to an end are laid down" but also "8 : the creative art of executing
aesthetic or functional designs":
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: 2design
Function: noun
Date: 1588
1 a : a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group <he has ambitious
designs for his son> b : deliberate purposive planning <more by accident than
design>
2 : a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down
3 a : a deliberate undercover project or scheme : PLOT b plural : aggressive or evil
intent -- used with on or against <he has designs on the money>
4 : a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be
executed : DELINEATION
5 a : an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding :
PATTERN, MOTIF <the general design of the epic> b : a plan or protocol for carrying
out or accomplishing something (as a scientific experiment); also : the process of
preparing this
6 : the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art
7 : a decorative pattern
8 : the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the verb form of "design" (which according to the Dictionary is the
*primary* meaning of the word) includes not only "1 : to create, fashion,
execute, or construct according to plan":
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: 2 design Main Entry: 1 design
Pronunciation: di-'zIn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Middle French &
Medieval Latin; Middle French designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare,
from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark -- more at SIGN
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b : to
have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her studies> c : to devise for
a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, Howard has debated this very point at length with leading IDer Bill Dembski on the
ASA Reflector several months ago and he must be aware that Dembski defined "design" with
Howard as involving "Concept, Sign, and Production"
(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199904/0178.html)
For Howard just to ignore this and continue on with his strawman definition of "design" shows
that Howard is really not interested in a serious dialogue with the ID movement.
HVT>However, although the reckless and vain rhetoric of people like Richard
>Dawkins and other preachers of Naturalism has not been my central concern
>movement.
Why ever not? One of the more interesting features of theistic evolutionists
is they spend a lot of their time and energy attacking their fellow Christians
who are creationists and very little (if any) time attacking naturalistic
evolutionists. So the only people who do attack naturalistic evolution with
any degree of consistency are the creationists, and they must spend a large
part of their time and energy defending themselves against the theistic
evolutionists!
HVT>I have responded to it critically on a number of occasions. See, for
>instance, my contributions to the book, _Science Held Hostage_
>(InterVarsity, 1988) in which I take both Carl Sagan and Peter Atkins to
>task for their attempts to exploit science for the promotion of their
>Naturalistic worldview. See also my chapter, "No Place for a Small God," in
>the book, _How Large is God?_. published by the Templeton Foundation Press
>in 1997. In that chapter I critique Daniel Dennet's rhetoric in his book
>_Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, pointing out that he has utterly failed to
>defeat the historic Christian doctrine of creation.
Howard is to be commended for this. But does he really think that "Sagan",
"Atkins" "Dennett", and their ilk would read something from "InterVarsity"
or "the Templeton Foundation"? At least Johnson tried to have Darwin on
Trial published by a secular publisher (Regnery Gateway), to avoid "the
Christian ghetto" but the latter on-sold it to Intervarsity.
But why doesn't Howard, if he was really concerned about reaching the
atheists (and not just `preaching to the choir') at least write letters to the
editors of major secular newspapers and magazines to try to get his anti-
atheistic evolution message across?
HVT>So, I have not been silent in my criticism of Naturalism. People who are
>actually interested in what I have to offer can read it in the works here
>cited.
See above. Why would the *atheists* be "interested" in reading what
Howard said about them in these obscure *Christian* books? As far as the
very people that Howard claims to be criticising, Howard might as well be
"silent" in his "criticism"!
HVT>I am fully aware that the ID style of anti-evolution position is far more
>popular in the evangelical Christian community than is my fully-gifted
>Creation perspective, with its willingness to celebrate the "robust
>formational economy principle." "!
First, "the ID style of anti-evolution position" is not only "far more popular
in the evangelical Christian community" but it is becoming more popular in
the wider Christian community, as well as attracting interest in the non-
Christian community. Mike Behe is a Roman Catholic and so hardly fits the
usual stereotype of a red-necked Protestant Bible-thumper, and Michael
Denton is AFAIK not even a Christian.
Second, Howard needs to explain *why* "the ID style of antievolution
position is far more popular" period than is his "fully-gifted Creation
perspective", if the latter is a truly historic Christian position.
HVT>However, I must say what I believe to be
>the case, whether popular or not. I do not subscribe to the idea that the
>value of one's writing is to be decided solely on book sales.
No one disputes Howard's right to say what he believes to be the case. And
of course "the value of one's writing" should not "be decided solely on
book sales".
But if one feels that one is a Christian apologist and both the atheists and
the Christian community are ignoring one's message (as measured by "book
sales") then one should look at both the content and the delivery of one's
message to see if that is the problem. It is simply not good enough for a
Christian apologist to blame the Christian community. Down through the
ages the Lord has raised up teachers who the Church has recognised and
listened to. That's why there still is a Church! If the Christian
community as a whole is rejecting the apologist's message, then the
apologist should reconsider if his message is wrong.
What Howard and other TE/ECs needs to face up to the unpleasant
possibility that maybe what they believe to be the case is *wrong*, and that
the Lord of history has judged TE/EC as a failed apologetic project (after
its initial early promise) and He is now raising up the ID movement to pick
up the baton dropped by TE/EC?
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put
forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes
unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their
sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the
inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation",
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p8)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------