On Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:28:25 -0400 you wrote:
[...]
BH>Anyway, I guess I do tend to agree with this. In fact, it seems to
>me that TE and PC are more closely related than TE and DE, i.e. the
>difference between TE and PC seems to be a disagreement over the
>interference mechanism :).
If there is "interference" then I would claim that TE *is* PC. IMHO,
TE is inconsistent because most TE's will grant some direct
intervention by God, eg. origin of life, creation of man. This makes
it indistinguishable from a weak PC.
OTOH DE is consistent, in that in its purest form it allows *no*
direct intervention by God, apart from creating the universe and its
laws at the very beginning.
BH>Now, Stephen will likely say that people who thought they were TE's
>are really PC's. In fact, the opposite is true, Stephen is really a
>TE and doesn't yet realize it ;-).
Indeed I have said this jokingly, so perhaps I have given the wrong
impression. I apologise. To clarify, I reject the "E", in "TE", ie.
"Evolution" *totally*. I don't want to offend my Christian brothers
who acept TE, but I regard the Darwinist theory of macro-evolution as
a (if not *the*) "strong delusion" (2Th 2:11), and part of the
dragon's (Satan's) "torrent" directed at the woman (the Church) (Rev
12:15).
I base this judgment on Darwinism's fruits (Mt 7:16). Simply,
Darwin's General Theory of Macroevolution has been one of the
greatest disasters that have ever befallen the Christian Church.
Even non-believers like Denton can see this:
"The Origin was revolutionary and shocking to Victorians because
nineteenth-century England was steeped in biblical fundamentalism and
creationist biology. The thesis Darwin had developed implied an end
to the traditional and deeply held teleological and anthropocentric
view of nature. Instead of being the pinnacle and end of creation,
humanity was to be viewed ultimately as a cosmic accident, a produce
of a random process no more significant than any one of the myriads of
other species on earth.
As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
catastrophic. The suggestion that life and man are the result of
^^^^^^^^^^
chance is incompatible with the biblical assertion of their being the
direct result of intelligent creative activity. Despite the attempt
by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can
probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the
intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of
evolution than to any other single factor.
Today ensconced in our comfortable agnosticism, after a century of
exposure to the idea of evolution and quite inured to the idea of a
universe without purpose, we tend to forget just what a shock wave the
advent of evolution sent through the Christian society of Victorian
England. Trevelyan captured something of the mood in his Social
History of England:
`More generally speaking, the whole idea of evolution and of 'man
descended from a monkey' was totally incompatible with existing
religious ideas of creation and of man's central place in the
universe. Naturally the religious world took up arms to defend
positions of dateless antiquity and prestige. Naturally the younger
generation of scientific men rushed to defend their revered chief, and
to establish their claim to come to any conclusion to which their
researches led, regardless of the cosmogony and chronology of Genesis,
and regardless of the ancient traditions of the Church. The strife
raged throughout the sixties, seventies, and eighties. It came to
involve the whole belief in the miraculous, extending into the borders
of the New Testament itself. The 'intellectuals' became more and more
anti-clerical, anti- religious, and materialistic under the stress of
the conflict. During this period of change and strife, causing much
personal and family unhappiness and many searchings of heart, the
world of educated men and women was rent by a real controversy, which
even the English love of compromise could not deny to exist.
It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times (with
^^^^^^^^^
the possible exception of the Copernican) so profoundly affected the
way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
1985, pp66-67)
I wish to emphasise that I am *not* making any judgements on
individual TE's. I regard them as my Christian brothers and esteem
them better than myself (Phl 2:3). It is the *system* of Darwinism
that I am implacably opposed to.
I hope that has clarified my position! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------