My friend Bob wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of RDehaan237@aol.com
>Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 11:27 AM
>In DARWIN ON TRIAL, Johnson wrote, "Evolution is taught in the public
>schools (and presented in the media) not as a theory, but as a fact, the
>'fact of evolution.' There are nonetheless many dissidents, some with
>advanced scientific degrees, who deny that evolution is a fact and
>who insist
>that an intelligent Creator caused all living things to come into being in
>furtherance of a purpose.
Bob, this is a logically fallacious argument. It is, in fact, an argument from authority. It is irrelevant that the dissidents have advanced degrees as that is no surety for good logical thinking. Nor it is an assurance that what the tiny dissidents think is what is metaphysically true.
>
>"The conflict requires careful explanation, because the terms are
>confusing.
>The concept of creation in itself does not imply opposition to
>evolution, if
>evolution means only a gradual process by which one kind of living
>creature
>changes into something different. A Creator might well have
>employed such a
>gradual process as a means of creation.
Then why, Bob, does Johnson seem to think that those who believe in evolution are
1. Accomodationists:
"The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable
with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheisitic.
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
2. are guilty of accepting naturalistic assumptions:
" I think that most theistic evolutionists
accept as scientific the claim that natural selection performed
the creating, but would like to reject the accompanying
metaphysical doctrine that scientific understanding of evolution
excludes design and purpose. The problem with this way of
dividing things is that the metaphysical statement is no mere
embellishment but the essential foundation for the scientific
claim." ~ `Phillip E.Johnson, _Darwin on Trial, 2nd Ed. (Downers
Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 168
'Evolution' contradicts
>'creation'
>only when it is explicitly defined as _fully naturalistic
>evolution_––meaning evolution that is not directed by any purposeful
>intelligence.
Not according to Johnson if you read what he actually says rather than what you want him to say.
1. that theistic evolutionists are self-contradictory:
"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
2. that no one but Johnson is truly 'unbiased' about such matters (which is nice to know how hubristic he is):
"The fundamental error that theistic evolutionists like
Van Till make is to assume that, because the modern neo-
Darwinian evolutionary synthesis is classified as 'science,' it
is supported by impartially evaluated empirical evidence. this
is not true, and I think Van Till at some level realizes that
it is not true." ~ Phillip E. Johnson, "God and Evolution: An
Exchange," First Things, June/July 1993, p. 39
This from a Lawyer who has never worked a single day as a scientist nor does he really care about science. Bob, he is only accepted by those who have a really strong reason (outside of science) to reject evolution. Show me one non-theist who even pays attention to Johnson in a positive way.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 17:10:03 EDT