Reflectorites
I have a funny feeling I had answered this already, but I can't see it in
my Sent folder. So apologies if you got it twice!
Subject: Re: its quite easy to accomodate faith and science (was ID vs. ?)
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:02:50 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>>FJ>Darwinism and the underlying
>>>foundation of science are not anti-Christian
>>
>>Maybe that is why leading Darwinists like Dawkins (Oxford Professor for
>>the Public Understanding of Science) describes religious faith as a "virus":
>>
>> "I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great
>> evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
>> (Morris H.M., "What They Say," BTG No. 123a, Institute for
>> Creation Research, El Cajon CA, March 1999.
>> http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-123a.htm)
SB>Dawkins (who wrote the above quote) is a fool, in my estimation, because he
>makes something of the same error that Johnson, et al. make, that is, he
>believes that evolution proves something about religion and the gods.
The very fact that Susan says "gods" shows that "Dawkins" and "Johnson"
are right that if the Christian God exists, then "evolution" (at least in the
mindless, purposeless Darwinian sense) would be false.
But Susan's `evolution doesn't say anything about religion" is what Johnson
calls the "two platoon" system:
"Larson and Witham brought their findings right into & heart of the;;
political effort by science organizations (especially the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences) to portray "evolution" as having no important
implications for religion. Their conclusion gains added weight because it
appeared in Scientific American, one of the most secure bastions of
scientific materialism:
"Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is
neutral," the [National Academy's report on science education]
cautiously begins, before launching its broadside of scientific
arguments against religious objections to teaching evolution. But
the irony is remarkable: a group of specialists who are nearly all
unbelievers and who believe that science compels such a
conclusion-told the public that "science is neutral" on the God
question...There many outstanding members of this Academy who
are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of
them biologists offered NAS president Bruce Alberts of course he
did not claim that these "very religious" NAS members believed in a
God as defined in Leuba's survey-traditional Jewish, Christian or
Muslim theism, that is-but that would have been the natural
interpretation of his statement by many in the general public.'
Larson and Witham label as "irony" what seems more like
deliberate deception to me. The National Academy's way of dealing
with the religious implications of evolution is akin to the two-
platoon system in American football. When the leading figures of
evolutionary science feel free to say what they really believe,
welters such as Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel
Dennett, Carl Sagan, Steven Pinker, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard
Lewontin and others state the "God is dead" thesis aggressively,
invoking the authority of science to silence any theistic protest.
That is the Offensive platoons and the National Academy never
raises any objection to its promoting this worldview. At other
times, however, the scientific elite has to protect the teaching of the
"fact of evolutional from objections by religious conservatives who
know what the offensive platoon is saying and who argue that the
science educators are insinuating a worldview that goes far beyond
the data. When the objectors are too numerous or influential to be
ignored, the defensive platoon takes the field That is when we read
those spin-doctored reassurances saying that many scientists are
religious (in some sense), that science does not claim to have
proved that God does not exist (but merely that he does not affect
the natural world), and that science and religion are separate realms
which should never be mixed (unless it is the materialists who are
doing the mixing). Once the defensive platoon has done its job it
leaves the field, and the offensive platoon goes right back to telling
the public that science has shown that "God" is permanently out of
business. (Johnson P.E., "The Wedge of Truth," 2000, p.87-89)
SB>Stephen, I think this may be the first time you actually make it clear that
>you don't sit around reading 35 year old technical journals mining for
>anti-evolution quotes, but actually pick them up from creationist websites
>and quotebooks.
We have been over this before, but for the benefit of newcomers, I have
never denied that I "actually pick them" (i.e. quotes) "up from creationist
websites" *occasionally*. There are not that many such websites that I am
aware of and I have in the past asked Susan for the links to the vast
numbers that she seems to think exists, so I can check them out! But she
has never responded, so I can only conclude she does really believe her
own rhetoric.
As I have pointed out before, the vast majority of my quotes I have
personally scanned them from the original sources. The reason I have done
this is that it is a favourite evolutionist dodge that creationist quotes are
often wrong, in the sense of not even stating correctly what the original
source said.
When I have checked this out from the original sources I have found there
is some truth in this, but that it is grossly exaggerated. Nevertheless, I aim
for *my* quotes to be as reliable as humanly possible, so that evolutionists
cannot use this excuse at least. Nevertheless mistakes do creep in so I
would be *very* happy if someone found and let me know of a textual
error in one of my quotes.
Since Susan has brought up this topic I will put in a plug for my own
"creationist" [i.e. evolutionists' quotes] website" at:
http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequotes.html.
I always indicate in my quotes if they are among the small minority that
come from secondary sources (as I did with the BTG quote that Susan is
referring to). Otherwise they are from the primary source which I either
own, have a photocopy of, or have borrowed it from a library. That is one
reason why I also maintain a list of creation/evolution books that I actually
*own*, starting at: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cebooksa.html.
SBI think I may have that particular copy of "The Humanist"
>so perhaps I can find the original context.
I have now found the original on the Web and I have put the quote in my
tagline below. Thanks to Susan for this!
SB>Even just examining the quote we have at hand we see that Morris, not
>widely known for his honesty,
Susan has no basis for this ad hominem. There have been at least two
evolutionist members of this List in the past who knew Morris personally.
they testified that in their opinion Morris was honest but wrong.
SB>inserted the word "religious" in front of the
>word "faith,"
It was *me* who inserted "religious" in front of "faith", not Morris. There
is no doubt that Dawkins is referring to religious faith because in the very
next paragraph of The Humanist article he went on to say:
"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice
of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle
East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly
dangerous?"
SB>--and you quoted Morris blindly
The fact that I quote someone accurately does not mean that I quoted them
"blindly". If I quoted them inaccurately then Susan no doubt would claim I
was quoting them dishonestly (as she has alleged in the past). Catch-22!
SB>--rather changing Dawkins's original meaning.
See above. It *was* Dawkins' "original meaning". What other "faith" does
Susan think Dawkins was referring to - evolutionary faith?
SB>Dawkins is almost certainly talking about faith in the
>sense of "belief without evidence."
Agreed that "Dawkins is ... talking about faith in the sense of `belief
without evidence.'" But in the article he cites "Religious faith" as the
example he has in mind:
"Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith.
Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices.
Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only
lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy,
shouted from the rooftops."
BTW what Dawkins cites is such an absurd caricature of Christian faith
that it casts doubts on either his knowledge of Christianity, his integrity or
his objectivity.
Since I assume that Dawkins is honest and he at other times displays a
reasonable knowledge of Christianity, I assume it the latter.
SB>Evidence is acutely important to
>scientists and belief is not possible without it.
Susan here agrees with me!
What Susan (and Dawkins) cannot seem to grasp is that "Evidence is
acutely important to" *Christians* too "and belief is not possible without
it".
Dawkins cites the case of "doubting Thomas":
"Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The
other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith
was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand,
required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of
scientists."
I have been a Christian continuously in attendance in conservative
evangelical Christian churches for the last 33 years, and I have never heard
any "Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas". In fact this story of
doubting Thomas is never mentioned anywhere else in the Bible except in
this place (John 20).
What Dawkins doesn't seem to realise that the whole passage in John 20 is
about the apostles' sceptical doubts that Jesus had risen from the dead and
only being convinced by the *evidence* that he had! Thomas was the last
apostle to be confronted by the evidence of the risen Christ because he was
absent on previous appearances of Jesus. Indeed the theme of the whole
gospel of John (not to mention the other gospels, the book of Acts and
some parts of the epistles), is to provide good *reasons* why people
should believe that Jesus was God in human form.
In fact there is something really bizarre about Dawkins citing this as though
it really happened. Because if it did really happen then Jesus was standing
there in front of Thomas and the rest of the apostles after they had all seen
him crucified! If Dawkins maintains it is all a myth then its a funny myth
that spends so much effort at providing evidence that Jesus had risen
*bodily* from the tomb!
SB>Which is why ID and creation science
Susan is still trying to lump "ID and creation science". There is no excuse
for this because she is well aware that the two are entirely different. There
are some IDers who are also adherents of "creation science" but there are
others, like me, who are not. Johnson, for example stated in his book
Darwin on Trial:
"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. I am not a defender of creation-science .... I
assume that the creation-scientists are biased by their
precommitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will have very
little to say about their position..." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial," 1993, p.14)
SB>will never be embraced by even devout Christians who
>happen to be scientists.
I have bad news for Susan. "ID and creation science" already *are*
"embraced by ... devout Christians who happen to be scientists."
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by
the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can
be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the
smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." (Dawkins R., "Is Science a
Religion?" The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1., January/February 1997.
http://humanist.net/publications/humanist/dawkins.html)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 17:21:12 EDT