On Thu, 21 Mar 1996 01:47:21 -0500 you wrote:
BH>This reply is in two parts, #3 and #4, to avoid confusion with
>#1 and #2. Is this a speciation event ;-).
Sounds like a Cambrian explosion! :-)
>SJ>Johnson (and I) agree that God could have used natural processes
>that could be called "evolution":
>"...A Creator might well have employed such a gradual process as a
>means of creation...." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",... p3-4).
>BH>What PJ is saying here is that theistic evolutionists (most anyway)
>are also creationists. My, that word creation is such a plastic
>word, it can mean almost anything ;-).
>SJ>No. Phil consistently and carefully defines his terms up front:
>
BH>[snipped PJ quote]
BH>I think you are missing the point here. Phil does an admirable
>job of defining his terms. Why is this necessary? To avoid
>confusion due to the fact that creationism can mean so many different
>things. So, Phil is to be commended for defining terms carefully.
Agreed.
BH>But Futyama does exactly the same thing. Due to possible confusion
>over the word evolution he carefully defines his terms. You praise
>Phil and criticise Futyama for doing the same thing.
Where have I criticised Futuyma for defining his terms?
>BH>I wonder why some creationists object to the label
>evolutionary creationist. This would seem to have Phil's blessing.
>SJ>Firstly, it is the Theistic Evolutionists (or Evolutionary
>creationists) who first attacked Phil. His first edition of DOT
>contained hardly anything about TE, ie:
BH>I am not quite sure what motivated this, but here goes ... :-).
I think something has been missed out? This was from the beginning of
the thread I think.
BH>First of all, I don't recall anyone ever attacking Phil, and
>I've been on this reflector a long time. For example, I witnessed
>the debate surrounding the document which became the appendix
>of Reason in the Balance (I think I have a lot of the exchanges
>archived somewhere) and many other debates about MN TR and theistic
>naturalism.
Sigh. It is my great regret that I missed this "golden age" of the
Reflector! :-) I wish someone would these exchanges a Web archive
somewhere! Do you think they will have replays in Heaven? :-)
BH>It is true that several people attacked Phil's ideas,
>but I cannot remember any personal attacks.
There have been personal attacks. One of the Reflectorites can
testify to that, but he told me privately and I will leave it to
him to tell you privately, if he wishes. But mainly I was speaking of
attacking "Phil's ideas".
BH> "If you are carrying the ball, expect to get tackled" :-)
> -- Hubert Yockey
Yes. But at the beginning of this thread it was a *TE* who was
complaining about Phil attacking TE.
>SJ>"The ASA leadership has generally embraced "compatibilism" (the
>doctrine that science and religion do not conflict because they
>occupy separate realms) and "theistic evolution." Theistic evolution
>is not easy to define, but it involves making an effort to maintain
>that the natural world is God-governed while avoiding disagreement
>with the Darwinist establishment on scientific matters." (Johnson ,
>pp128-129).
BH>My, now that's a nice one. Shall we have a poll? How many TE's
>try to avoid "...disagreement with the Darwinist establishment
>on scientific matters".
All of them as far as I have seen! :-) I have heard of Creation-
Science debates with Darwinists and Phil Johnson's debates with
Darwinists, but I haven't heard of any TE debates with Darwinists.
What would they debate about? :-)
>SJ>But for his pains, PJ came under criticism from TE's:
BH>He was criticised by those who disagreed with him. Why should it
>be otherwise?
Again. You have turned this around (perhaps inadvertently). I was
originally defending Phil from a claim that he attacked TE.
>SJ>"My secular colleagues usually assume that a book which
>challenges the central pillar of scientific naturalism must have
>been received with wild enthusiasm in the Christian world. It is
>true that many Christian readers are enthusiastic, but there are also
>many with serious reservations....One group with which I have been
>particularly engaged in discussion and debate consists of the
>Christian professors of science and philosophy who attempt to
>accommodate science and religion by embracing "theistic evolution."
>(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition*, 1993, pp128-129).
BH>Ah, the myth that TE is a compromise.
IMHO TE is "a compromise". But my point was that in the *first
edition* of DOT, Johnson merely said that "theistic evolution"
attempted to "accommodate science and religion".
>SJ>But there is a real problem with knowing what "evolution" means to
>Darwinists, because they change their definitions of the term even in
>the same context:
BH>Wouldn't it be better to support this accusation by quoting
>Darwinists?
Do you dispute it? But I have been thinking of starting a glossary of
the different ways that "evolution" is used by "Darwinists" and TE's
on this Reflector.
BH>[snipped PJ quote]
>
>BH>It seems to me that this supports my position rather than yours.
>Dobzhansky is pointing out that there are different types of
>evolution. He is carefully pointing out that he is discussing
>biological evolution. He seems to be giving a caution to the
>reader "There are other types of evolution, don't get confused
>by the terminology."
>SJ>No doubt. But what exactly is this "concept of evolution" that
>is "much broader"? Why, if "biological evolution and chemical
>evolution are separate issues" are they both called "evolution"?
BH>They aren't. one is called biological evolution the other is
>called chemical evolution.
Really Brian! :-) In the above "biological" and "chemical" are
adjectives for the one noun "evolution". Why is the same noun
used if they are "separate issues"?
>SJ>...You seem to be agreeing with me. :-) My point was that
>>"Yockey...is not a "Darwinist". You have stated that: a)
>"Yockey....As far as I know... is an agnostic"; and b) He doesn't
>believe in "chemical evolution".
>BH>Well, I don't know Stephen, Yockey says that he is a Darwinist. In
>his book he writes:
>
> Thermodynamics and the theory of evolution by natural selection
> are among the great scientific theories of the nineteenth century.
> (page 310)
>SJ>That does not make Yockey a Darwinist. I am a creationist and I
>regard
BH>OK, I'll put the ball in your court. You originally claimed
>that Yockey is a "non-Darwinian thinker". I have given evidence
>from his own words that he is a Darwinist which you continue
>to pooh pooh. So, please provide some support for your original
>claim. Previously you said he is not a Darwinist because he
>rejects the origin of life by chance. I cannot think of any
>modern origin of life researcher who thinks that the origin
>of life occurred by chance. Are they all non-Darwinist thinkers
>then?
I did that at the very beginning. From recollection, Yockey does not
believe in the chance origin of life, nor in the central role of
natural selection. That makes him a "non-Darwinian thinker" in my
book.
>BH>Here again I think we have a problem with popularizations. I
>don't think there is any question that Dawkins would like to tie
>the origin of life with Darwinism.
>SJ>Its not just "Dawkins" that "would like to tie the origin of life
>with Darwinism."
>BH>I don't doubt that at all :). The point is whether its proper
>to do so.
>SJ>We are agreed that it is not "proper to do so" but the myth has
>been assiduously cultivated, so that it has entered popular culture.
>And I don't see Darwinists trying very hard to correct it.
BH>Try linking Darwinism to the Origin of Life on talk.origins and
>see what happens. Be sure you are wearing flame retardant
>clothes :-).
I find that interesting in itself. But my point was not what those
"in the know" believe, but what is "cultivated" as a "myth" in
"popular culture".
BH>Based upon my own experiences, I wouldn't be too surprised if your
>daughter's textbook botches up its presentation of abiogenesis.
SJ>Of course it does! :-) From the outset it simply asserts:
BH>[...] Thanks for the info. I guess I can add this text to my
>list of abiogenesis botchups.
Who said it is a "botchup". I am claiming it is *deliberate*! :-)
BH>continued ....
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------