On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:40:47 -0400 you wrote:
BH>Denis complains that critics use secondary sources. Jim warns
>against a "priesthood mentality". In the creation/evolution squabble
>a third factor is involved: an adversarial relationship between the
>critics and the practitioners. I don't mean the kind of healthy
>adversarial relationship in which the combatants can shake hands and
>have a beer after the debate, as I've seen Phil do. I mean the kind
>of adversarial relationship in which each side plays to a different
>audience, tosses brickbats at one another, but the two sides never
>talk.
Although this debate has degenerated into an "adversarial
relationship", the tossing of personal "brickbats" has come from one
or two on the Evolution side only. None of my posts has contained
intentional ad hominem remarks and if anyone can remind me of even
one, I will immediately apologise.
My criticisms have always been aimed at the Darwinist general theory
of macro-evolution, because I believe it is not in accord with the
evidence that I have read to date. I harbour no personal animosity to
those who hold that theory. Indeed I have been for months now praying
for the healing of Prof. William Provine, one of the leading
exponents of Neo-Darwinism and iots atheistic implications. I have
also prayed for my opponents on this Reflector.
BH>If I wanted to learn about torts, I'd probably talk to an attorney
>friend and ask for his recommendations. Perhaps he'd recommend
>Prosser. Fine. After I had read some of the material, I'd talk to
>him to make sure I was getting it right. Of course if the
>practitioners of a field see you as a bombthrower intent on
>destroying it, they may be reluctant to talk to you.
Unfortunately, using such emotive terms as "quote bombs" or
"bombthrower" is more likely to inflame any "adversarial relationship"
that exists. When an evolutionist quotes an evolutionist (or
creationist) to support evolution, that is OK, but when a creationist
quotes an evolutionist (or creationist) to criticise evolution, that
is throwing "quote bombs"! :-)
This is just another (perhaps unconscious) example of the "skilful
manipulation of categories and definitions" that Johnson points out
automatically puts creationism in the wrong and evolution in the
right, before the debate even gets started.
BH>But that doesn't mean you can't be critical of a field and still
>talk to its practitioners. When you talk to the people working in a
>field like evolutionary biology, you find out fairly quickly that
>they're not a bunch of atheists intent on overthrowing Christianity.
Whether the "practitioners" of evolutionary biology are "intent on
overthrowing Christianity" is not the main point, which is whether
Darwinist macro-evolution is in accord with the evidence.
But there is no doubt that the *effect* of "evolutionary
biology" has been the "overthrowing Christianity":
"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...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)
And there is no doubt that the leading spokesman of "evolutionary
biology" *are* "intent on overthrowing Christianity". Gould has
asserted that: "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had
created us." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", 1977, Penguin, p267)
Dawkins has railed against creationists claiming they are all
"ignorant, stupid or insane...or wicked", (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", Inter Varsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition,
1993, p9), and has claimed that "Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin: London, p6). Finally, Darwin himself
said that his *number one goal* in propounding his theory was to
"overthrow" the Christian doctrine of "separate (ie. special)
creations":
"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct
objects in view; FIRSTLY, TO SHEW THAT SPECIES HAD NOT BEEN
SEPARATELY CREATED, and secondly, that natural selection had been the
chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects
of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding
conditions. I was not, however able to annul the influence of my
former belief, then almost universal THAT EACH SPECIES HAD BEEN
PURPOSELY CREATED; and this led to my tacit assumption that every
detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was some special, though
unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his mind would
naturally extend too far the action of natural selection either during
past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of
evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when
criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence
if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am
very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is
in itself probable, I HAVE AT LEAST, AS I HOPE, DONE GOOD SERVICE
IN AIDING TO OVERTHROW THE DOGMA OF SEPARATE CREATIONS."
(Darwin C., "The Descent of Man", Modern Library, Random House: New
York, 1871, p56. emphasis mine).
BH>In fact quite a number of them are Christians. But if you never
>talk, you don't find that out. So, creationists, when you read a
>paper by Gould, instead of thinking about how you might use what he
>said to show the bankruptcy of evolutionary theory, maybe it would be
>better to write Professor Gould a letter.
I think you are being a bit naive here Bill. Gould might be a nice
guy in person, but when it comes to creationists of all stripes (not
only YECs) in print he puts his warpaint on. Read "Darwin on Trial"
(p130) for Johnson's account of Gould joining in an attack on the ASA
(who are mainly theistic evolutionists), and read also (p160) for
Gould's hatchet job on Johnson and his book. Actually Johnson did
write Gould a letter over the latter's criticism of Dawkins'
adaptationist model, but Gould just ignored it:
"I wrote to Gould after this review to suggest that he is no more a
Darwinist than I am, and that he refuses to acknowledge this only
because he fears the metaphysical consequences. He did not answer."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove Ill., 1995, p227-228)
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------