Glenn, in his earlier reply to me, cited several additional writings of
the ID community. I thought I'd comment (briefly) on each of these.
"If theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as they
understand it is harmless to theistic religion, they are misleading their
constituents unless they add a clear warning that the version of
evolution
advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else
altogether. That warning is never clearly delivered, however, because the
main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream
scientific community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting
serve
the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the
religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of
naturalism."
Phillip E. Johnson"What is Darwinism?" accessed 8.31.96
http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/wid.htm
Here Johnson seems to imply that our only purpose in life is to salve the
mainstream scientific community, and he claims in this that we are
witless
to know that we are being used. Good grief, we do have a bit of smarts,
not
that one would ever guess from this bit of polemical rhetoric."
Glenn -- I agree with your assessment here. It comes about, I think,
because Johnson has set his face against "methodological naturalism" as a
proper foundation for science. In this, I assert that he errs. He also
says "...the entire body of mainstream science ..." which is clearly
nonfactual. Had he said "a substantial part of mainstream scientists" I'd
still argue that the ID movement has not shown this to be so, and both
you and I, as well as most people on this list, disbelieve it. How large
this body is yet to be measured.
------------------------
"To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation of the history
of
life), one has to know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is
possible. To know that is to assume that God does not or cannot create.
To
infer that mutation and selection did the creating because nothing else
was
available, and then to bring God back into the picture as the omnipotent
being who chose to create by mutation and selection, is to indulge in
self-contradiction. That is why Darwin and his successors have always
felt
that theistic evolutionists were missing the point, although they have
often
tolerated them as useful allies." ~ Phillip Johnson, "Creator or Blind
Watchmaker?" First Things, Jan. 1993, pp 8-14, p. 14
Yep, here Johnson treats us as the lap dogs of the evolutionists
conjuring
up the picture of us panting our tongues as our masters pat us on the
head!"
I think the larger point here is that Johnson, apparently, sees science
as a "search or ultimate truths," rather than a search for natural
causation models that work.
------------
"There are liberal theologians who embrace scientific naturalism but
still
think of themselves as Christians: in fact, they dominate mainline
seminaries. Bryan recognizes that these accomodationists have discarded
the
only metaphysical basis that can support a mystery of God incarnate
determined to save his children from themselves, and so their
Christianity
survives only as a metaphor. That is why the Christians he respects are
the
genuine, unapologetic supernaturalists, but he thinks that opinion is
foreclosed to one who has drunk deeply of the waters of naturalism,
death-giving though he may know that to be." ~ Phillip Johnson, "The
Reluctant Skeptic", First Things, Dec. 1991, p. 53
Accomodationist is one of those terms which pollsters know cause people
to
move to the other side of the room if one is spotted in a crowd.
Accommodationist has the implication of a compromiser (which many YECs
have
called me)."
And neither you nor I are accommodationalists, I would say. But we both
understand the scientific enterprise quite differently than Johnson.
---------------
"The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with
theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the
answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that
generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for
the
accomodationist position is not 'theistic evolution,' but rather theistic
naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error." ~ Phillip E.
Johnson, "Shouting 'Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin,"Christianity Today
Oct.
24, 1994, p. 26"
Once again, Johnson uses the word "true" where it does not belong.
Good to have you back on the list!
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 10 2002 - 18:53:46 EST