(To all: I am seriously behind, due to many factors. My Service
Provider's
mail system was one factor, but it now appears to be working. If any
mail
from me got bounced, could the author please re-send it to me
privately?
Thanks)
On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:51:43 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
LH>Several people have written about Darwinism's "devastating impact"
on
>culture and on Christianity. Those posts raised several questions in my
>mind:
[...]
LH>I hope our discussions can generate some answers. Here's my first
>contribution:
LH>1) Is macroevolution unique amongst scientific theories in terms of
>its theological impact?
LH>No, and yes. Many theologians have argued that the teachings of
scripture
>are clearly contrary to macroevolution. No other scientific theory TODAY
>has that level of theological opposition. However, when heliocentrism was
>being debated, many well-respected theologians of the time argued that the
>teachings of scripture were clearly contrary to heliocentrism. It was the
>general consensus of the church leadership, at the time, that
>heliocentrism was false, and that it was very difficult to reconcile
>heliocentrism with scripture. In that sense, I would say that
>macroevolution is not historically unique.
There is no evidence AFAIK that the Copernican revolution of 1543 made
much lasting difference to Christianity. Indeed, the Church went from
strength to strength in the Reformation at the same time.
The Darwinian revolution OTOH has had a profound effect on man's
concept of himself and of God. Charles Hodge saw the essence of
Darwinism in its denial of teleology:
"Professor Huxley says that when he first read Darwin's book he
regarded it as the death-blow of teleology, i.e. of the doctrine of
design and purpose in nature...No argument...can be needed to show
that Mr Darwin does teach that natural causes are `undirected' and
that they act without design or reference to an end. This is not only
explicitly and repeatedly asserted, but argued for, and the opposit
view ridiculed and jejected," (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", Vol.
II, 1960 (reprint), James Clark & Co: London, p16-18).
LH>However, I believe that impact of macroevolution on hermeneutics is
>greater that the impact of heliocentrism. Macroevolution, especially
>regarding what it says about HUMAN origins, affects more biblical texts
>and more important doctrines that heliocentrism ever did.
Agreed. Heliocentricism was probably more a problem to Medieval
scholastic philosophy than to the Bible.
LH>2) Can we separate the actual scientific content of macroevolution
>from its common anti-theistic metaphysical extrapolations?
LH>Yes. Christian scientists and theologians have shown how to do
this.
>Certainly, there is still some disagreement amongst Christians (and
>amongst participants in this discussion group). But if macroevolution is
>eventually "proven" scientifically, the basic groundwork for understanding
>natural selection and stochastic processes in a THEISTIC context has
>already been done.
I do not disagree with this. But IMHO it is unlikely that
"macroevolution" will be "eventually `proven' scientifically. I
believe that the evdidence points to God having created progressively.
LH>3) Can we separate the science from the metaphysics IN THE MIND OF
>THE GENERAL PUBLIC?
LH>No. Or at least, we have failed to do so thus far. Christians
scientists
>may know how to do this, but very few Christian non-scientists know how to
>do this. (I find this failure suprising, in some sense. "Big Bang"
>cosmology has only been around for a few decades, and yet -- despite the
>fact that it is rather different than the "traditional" understanding of
>Genesis 1 --- it has been almost "baptized" by many Christian churches.)
The reason is that Darwinism is assiduously promoted by naturalists as
a modern creation myth. I listen to the radio while I am at work.
Scarcely a day goes by without some claim that a new discovery
"proves" evolution. Before I started studying the issue of Creation
and Evolution I would have believed it. But from what I now know, I
can see that they more often than not represent a fresh difficulty
for Darwinism.
LH>Christians who accept the science of macroevolution, and instead
attack
>its SUPPOSED connections to anti-theistic philosophy, have so far failed
>to make their case to the general public. Most non-Christian
>non-scientists only read the writings of philosophical Naturalists on the
>subject of evolution. Many non-Christian scientists (who understand
>evolutionary biology) DO reject some or all of Darwinism's metaphysical
>claims, but they do so only because they intuitively believe the
>metaphysical extrapolations to be non sequiturs --- NOT because they have
>heard counter-arguments from Christian scientists/philosophers.
Thanks for your candour. IMHO TE does not seriously grapple with
Biblical issues in Genesis 1-2 and elsewhere. The deciding factor
in TE seems to be naturalistic science, not divine revelation. I
would call on TE's to seriously consider PC as a vigorous
*creationist* alternative to TE.
LH>4) What other philosophical and social developments have occurred
>simultaneously with Darwinism's rise? Can we determine which
>"impacts" were caused by Darwinism _per_se,_ and which were caused by
>other factors?
LH>There are at least five other significant social/philosophical
>developments which occurred prior to or independently of Darwinism, and
>whose impacts upon society (and the church) could be confused with
>Darwinism.
LH>A) RISING SECULARISM. This is a very old problem. (Many of the
prophets
>in the Old Testament wrote about this one.) There seems to be a
>correlation, historically, between rising societal wealth and rising
>secularism. Secularism was on the rise in the West before Darwin, though
>Darwinism may have fed it.
Agreed. Darwinism was successful because its time had come. Science
was on the rise and the Church had become authoritarian and
irrelevant. IMHO Darwinism is the (or part of the) "religion" of
secularism.
LH>B) PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM. This was definitely on the rise well
before
>Darwin. I suspect that the extrapolation from Newtonian mechanics to
>metaphysical Determinism was primarily to blame. Darwin's theories may
>have given Naturalism a considerable boost, but Naturalism itself was
>rising prior to Darwin purely because of methological naturalism's success
>in the physical sciences.
Agreed. See above. In fact, as Johnson points out, this is the real
culprit. Hodge says:
"Dr Gray (Asa not Terry! :-)) eneavours to vindicate Darwin's theory
from the charge of atheism. His arguments, however, only go to prove
that the doctrine of development, or derivation of species, may be
held in a form consistent with theism. This no one denies. The do not
prove that Mr. Darwin presented it in that form." (Hodge, p18).
If TE's could make a real break with philosophical naturalism, then
they would be able to make their case against Darwinism's anti-theism.
But instead they criticise those like Johnson who try to take the
fight up to naturalism.
LH>C) OPERATIONALISM. Logical positivism and the behaviorist school
of
>psychology are two results of the Operationalist philosophical outlook.
>(These developed after Darwin, but I believe that their development was
>largely independent.) Operationalism has also influenced the social
>sciences and even the humanities today.
I am not an expert on this, but IMHO much of behaviourism was based
on a Darwinist-materialist outlook.
LH>D) RISING INDIVIDUALISM. Major contributing causes to rising
>individualism are, no doubt, rising wealth and capitalism.
Agreed. Darwinism with its "survival of the fittest" rationalisation
was very acceptable to a wide range of philosophies, eg. Marxism and
Capitalism! Basically it reinforces the innate selfishness of the
natural man.
LH>E) UNIVERSALISM. The theology of "universalism" was having a major
>impact on Western Christianity for a century before Darwin.
I think you have missed the very real impact of evolutionary views on
19th century continental theology. Wellhausen, for example,
endeavoured to recast Israel and early Church history in an
evolutionary mould, eg. the prophets cam first and the Law last, etc.
Evolutionary views governed NT theology also, with "The Search
for the Historical Jesus" which saw a primitive kerygma
preached by Jesus being elaborated by the early church,
culminating in the Gospels being written in 200 AD.
Evolutionary views had their influence in the rise of Modernism
in the USA, and the ensuing Modernist vs Fundamentalist controversy
of the 1930's set the scene for much of what exists in Christianity
in the USA today. Insert plenty of "IMHO's" in the above. I am not an
expert on the USA! :-)
LH>When we talk about Darwinism's "devastating impact" on society and
>Christianity, we must remember these other factors. I'd like to see some
>work done to sort out just which affects are attributable to which causes.
The "causes" are well known. Why not work on a new *solution*? IMHO
any solution must involve Christians emphasising their common beliefs
and attacking *naturalism*. That's why it is so disappointing to see
TE's being basically negative to Phil Johnson. If TE's cannot take the
fight up to naturalism, then why try to stop others who try to do it?
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------