On Sun, 15 Oct 1995 20:25:03 -0400 you wrote:
Sorry for the delay!
>BH>...the difference between TE and PC seems to be a disagreement over
>the interference mechanism :).
SJ>If there is "interference" then I would claim that TE *is*
PC...most
>TE's will grant some direct intervention by God...This makes it
>indistinguishable from a weak PC.
BH>One of the motivations for my posts on this was to try to find some
>common ground between the various positions held by Christians on this
>most controversial and divisive issue. In this sense, I think the current
>thread is very encouraging. It seems clear to me that many TE's actually
>agree with many PC's on some key points. This being the case, it really
>doesn't matter to me much what one wants to call oneself. Evolution doesn't
>have to carry negative connotations. One could define the notorious
>"fact of evolution" as merely the empirical observation of biological
>change over time. PC and TE would then be two ways of explaining this
>observation. If they agree on some points, so much the better, IMHO.
Agreed. "How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together
in unity!" (Ps 133:1)
[...]
SJ>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:
BH>"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's
clothing, but
>inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize
>them. ...
> -- Matthew 7:15-16a [NIV]
BH>I think you should be very careful in using this passage to justify
your
>opposition to evolution. First of all, Jesus is telling us to recognize
>people (not scientific theories) by their fruit. Secondly, he is talking
>about a specific type of person, false prophets coming to us in sheep's
>clothing. I would take this as delusion and confusion coming from within
>the church, or in any event from individuals who claim to be in the church.
I did not quote the previous verse referring to "false prophets". I
was not calling TE's "false prophets", although in a sense I believe
Darwin might have been. I was referring to the general scriptural
test "By their fruit you will recognize them", which is repeated in
other contexts, eg. Mt 12:33; Lk 6:44 "for a tree is recognized by
its fruit".
BH>Thus, it seems to me that we can't even use this verse to justify
judging
>professed atheists like Sagan, Dawkins or Dennett by their fruits. I guess
>this makes sense. Their professed atheism renders more subtle methods of
>detection such as fruit recognition unnecessary.
Sorry, but if someone sets themselves up as teaching a message that is
contrary to scripture, and it has bad fruit, then I believe they can
be regarded as "false prophets".
BH>I feel rather strongly that the Church's main struggle comes from
within
>and further that well meaning Christians are doing much more harm to
>the cause of Christ than atheists such as Dawkins or Dennett could ever
>hope for.
Perhaps. But that is part of the effect of false prophets. Some
members of the flock in overreacting to the "wolves", injure
themselves and other members of the flock. Again, I do not claim
that members of the flock (eg. TE's) are false prophets.
BH>Secondly, I think it is extremely important to keep a distinction
between
>the science of evolution and the abuses of this science promulgated by
>certain individuals. A common example of such abuse is to maintain on
>the one hand that the methods of science cannot address purpose or meaning
>and then turn around and say that the methods of science show that their is
>no purpose or meaning.
I agree. I have no argument against "science". But I don't think
there is such a thing as a "science of evolution". The science is
called Biology or Palaeontology, etc. Evolution is a philosophy.
BH>Isn't it possible that evolution is true while the metaphysical
interpretations
>of evolution are false? I think people like Howard van Till, John Polkinghorne,
>Owen Gingerich etc. are performing a tremendous service to the Church in
>showing
>that it is possible to accept evolution without accepting the metaphysical
>baggage
>of some of evolutions proponents.
BH>quoting Denton:
>SJ>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.
BH>Here, Denton is guilty of one of the abuses I had in mind above.
What
>his motives are I don't know, perhaps he just doesn't know any better.
>Evolution involves chance and selection, chance + selection is no longer
>chance. If we add a third ingredient, chance + selection + self-organization,
>things become even more interesting. In this view, the role of chance may
>well be reduced to that of an efficient way of finding what is there to
>begin with, i.e. chance may be an element of an overall design process.
You had better read Denton. Since selection can only work on what
chance throws up, there is an antithesis between it and design. The
point is that as Charles Hodge determined a century ago, the
essential feature of Darwinism as far as Christianity goes is the
latter's denial of teleology.
>[...]
>Denton continued:
SJ>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.
>^^^^^^^^^
BH>Exactly the abuse of science that I mentioned above.
Agreed, but this is a corollary of Darwinism. Dawkins and Gould
both (despite their differences) draw this conclusion.
SJ>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)
SJ>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.
BH>I suspect that you are opposed to the Darwinian World View (and
>rightly so) instead of the science of evolutionary biology.
Agreed, but I would not accept that there is a "science of
evolutionary
biology". Developmental biology yes, evolutionary biology no. The
reason is that as a PC, I don't believe there is any such thing as
"evolution".
SJ>I hope that has clarified my position! :-)
BH>yes, indeed. I wish I knew what my position was so I could clarify
it ;-).
>I became interested in the evolution/creation debate only about a year and
>half ago. It will probably take me awhile longer before I can get a handle
>on things.
Thanks for your criticism Brian! :-)
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------