I just read the book Darwinism defeated by Phillip E. Johnson and Denis O.
Lamoureux and guest appearances by Behe, Denton, van Till and others.
I was pleasantly surprised to see several Christians stand up and point out
some of the problems and rethoric in Johnson's books. Even more interestingly
was the response, or in my opinion absence of response of Johnson to the
scientific criticism raised by Lamoureux.
Keith B Miller writes:
"Johnson has criticized evolutionary theory by refering to specific
observable data. He has devoted much of his argument over the years to
casting doubt on the observational support for evolutionary theory. As such,
he has made scientific claims that can only be refuted by discussing the
available evidence. He must then be willing to accept criticism of his
scientific arguments and respond to them. This is the nature of scientific
discourse. Instead he states in his response to Lamoureux, "I do not think it
worthwile to discuss detail evidentiary questions with Denis Lamoureux, or
with other person who that the postition I call theistic naturalism, or
whatever they chose to call it". He thus effectively refuses to discuss the
evidence that he uses to support his position with any advicate of theistic
evolution whose philosophy of science or theology of God's creative actions
he finds objectionable. This insulation from critcism is not conductive to
dialogue, or to the search for truth. For similar reasons, Johnson fails to
engage the depth of theological thought present among his evangelical
Christian brothers and sisters who accept evolution as the best description
of the history of life."
pp 114-115
Johnson claims that "We have plenty of evidence to offer but the evidence
does not matter if intelligent causes are ruled out of consideration on a
priori philosophical or theological grounds."
This however has little relevance to discussing Johnson's supposed evidence
against evolution. Lamoureux indentifies several areas in which Johnson's
understanding of evolution is quite lacking. Lamoureux also addresses
Johnson's claims of ID.
I will be discussing more of this book in later messages. I would like to ask
those on this reflector about their views and opinions on this book.
My opinion?
This books shows quite clearly what is wrong with the "[...]false equation of
metaphysical naturalism and evolutionary theory, which Johnson uncritically
accepts, [...]"
"Although this understanding of evolutionary theory [unguided, purposeless
FMAJ] u is widely promoted by some atheistic scientists, its conflation of
metaphysical naturalism with evolution is widely rejected as philosophically,
theologically and historically false, and is recognized as damaging to the
discipline of science." Eugenie Scott, the director of the National Center
for Science Education (NCSE). a strong secular advocacy group for the
teaching of evolution states "If science is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural processes, we are then constrained from making
pronouncements about the supernatural world. We can neither say there is, nor
say that there is not, a God or any other omnipotent power ... Statements
about whether God exists or interferes in the world, are plain outside of our
job description, regardless of our personal theistic or nontheistic views."
K. B. Miller pp 109-110
In a postscript to his argument, Denis Lamoureux mentions the NABT statement.
The primary tenet of the 1995 statement states:
"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: An unsupervised,
impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with
genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance,
historical contingencies and changing environments."
"As I commented in my paper, Johnson was correct in pointing out that this
tenet reflects a dystheological philosophy. However, at a recent meeting of
the NABT in Minneapolis the board agreed to drop the words "unsupervised" and
"impersonal".
NABT executive director Wayne W Carley said, "We decided that we had
constructed a meaning we had not intended. [The statement] was interpreted to
mean that there is no God. Absolutely not. We did not mean to imply that.
That is beyond the purview of science."
pp. 46
So is Darwinism and evolutionary theory necessarily or inherently "anti-God"?
It seems that such a position becomes harder and harder to defend. It is
correct to point out that there are some strong atheistic Darwinists who
conclude this based on their philospophy but equally evident is that there
are Darwinists and Christian Darwinists who consider Darwinism either neutral
(as a science) or additional evidence supporting their religious world view.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 24 2000 - 22:14:03 EDT