>Agreed. But my emphasis was on the *practical* real-world effect.
>Denton pointed out that the effect of Darwin's theory on Christianity
>was "catastrophic":
>
>"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." (Denton M., "Evolution:
>A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985, p66)
My understanding is that Denton is not a Christian, and therefore I would
not put too much stock in his views about the vulnerability of
Christianity. H. G. Wells said something similar, and I would discount his
conclusion for the same reason. Not that I automatically discount the
thoughts of a nonChristian. But Denton and Wells simply don't have (can't
be expected to have) the confidence in the work of the Holy Spirit a
Christian ought to have. Don't take me as complacently sanguine either.
There _is_ a war going on, and although I believe the victory has already
been won in that war, the enemy is still alive and able to do some damage.
We are still called to take territory from him.
>
>And there is the intellectual honesty aspect. I believe in
>supernatural creation because it seems to me that it is the only
>intellectually honest position, not just because it cannot be
>disproved.
And I respect your desire for intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty
depends on perspective. My perspective is that a Christianity that rails
against phenomena which can be observed in nature will not be perceived as
intellectually honest. My view is closer to PC than TE or EC, but from an
observational point of view, I believe it would be difficult or impossible
to distinguish between the two. Consider the case of an individual who has
gotten a degree in evolutionary biology or biochemistry or some other field
that takes evolution as fact. _Then_ for the first time in his life he's
confronted with the claims of Christ and actually listens. From his
perspective, a Christian who argues against evolution is being
intellectually dishonest. It would be much better to just lead the
individual to Christ. If he's already been in arguments with creationists
and has already pegged Christianity as intellectually dishonest, you
probably will have to assure him that Christianity is about issues that are
far more fundamental than the _mechanics_ of how God develops life. It
seems to me that the time for an individual to struggle with origins issues
is after he becomes a Christian, when he has the help of the Holy Spirit in
understanding what Scripture says. Based on my experience, contrasted with
that of equally committed Christian brothers who have come down on the
opposite side of the origins issue, I don't think the Holy Spirit is going
to categorically solve the origins problem for him. What I would hope for
would be that the Holy Spirit would lead him to understand that the main
issues in Scripture are far more crucial than the _mechanics_ of how God
goes about developing life.
If naturalism really was going from strength to strength in
>explaining life, the universe and everything,
But it isn't. Even if it succeeded in showing how a self-replicating
molecule could have occurred naturally, that's a long way from explaining
how self-aware introspective, spiritual man could arrive on the scene. Can
you imagine any naturalistic explanation of the Holy Spirit? BTW the
answer you are looking for is 42. See the Hitchhiker's guide to the
galaxy. :-).
then the only
>intellectually honest position is to admit that naturalism is true and
>theism false, as Johnson points out:
>
>"The problem, very briefly stated, is this: if employing MN is the
>only way to reach true conclusions about the history of the universe,
MN can reach true conclusions about a limited set of phenomena: those
phenomena which involve material objects or their interactions. _That_ is
a very limited set. So his initial premise is wrong.
>and if the attempt to provide a naturalistic history of the universe
>has continually gone from success to success, and if even theists
>concede that trying to do science on theistic premises always leads
>nowhere or into error (the embarrassing "God of the gaps"), then the
>likely explanation for this state of affairs is that naturalism is
>true and theism is false." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
>InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p211)
But even vigorous, aggressive advocates of evolution like David Futuyma
caution that evolution cannot explain everything. Futuyma in his popular
book on evolution (can't remember the title) observes that evolution is
totally inappropriate for explaining the effect that a particular piece of
music has on him. Yet that phenomenon and others that go with it: drama,
painting, decoration, dance, song, storytelling, are a significant
component of what it means to be human. The position of the individual who
claims evolution can explain everything is hopeless.
>
>Johnson adds:
>
>"Persons who are sufficiently motivated to do so can find ways to
>resist the easy pathway from MN to atheism, agnosticism or deism. For
>example, perhaps God actively directs the evolutionary process but
>(for some inscrutable reason)
Hebrews 11
does so in a way that is empirically
>imperceptible. No one can disprove that sort of possibility, but not
>many people regard it as intellectually impressive either.
Right and wrong are not determined by a majority vote. Value is not
determined by whether people think something is intellectually impressive.
That they
>seem to rely on "faith"-in the sense of belief without evidence
Thjere is plenty of evidence: the history of the church, both in NT and
later times. Healings, changed lives -- radically in many cases, miracles,
both in the NT and today. Why does Phil have so little confidence in the
ability of the Holy Spirit to bring people to faith in Christ?
-is why
>theists are a marginalized minority in the academic world and always
>on the defensive.
They are also on the defensive because they get associated in the academic
mind with the YEC's.
Usually they protect their reputation for good
>judgment by restricting their theism to private life and assuming for
>professional purposes a position that is indistinguishable from
>naturalism." (Johnson, 1995, p211)
Not wise, I agree.
>
>BH>As one who regards God as a Person who can relate to me as a
>>Person, I'm not excited about making Him the subject of scientific
>>investigation anyway.
>
>I don't think He would be all that "excited" about it either! :-) But
>that is not the point. The point is that if the naturalist can
>spontaneously generate a self-replicating molecule in vitro from the
>ordinary laws of chemistry and physics, without what Thaxton et. al.
>call "the illegitimate role of the investigator" (Thaxton, et. al.,
>1992, p185), then God is not necessary for life - one could simply
>claim that the natural laws that generated life were eternal.
>
>Of course one could still believe that a God was behind it all, but
>that god could just as easily be the God of the deist or pantheist.
Absolutely not. The God of the deist or the pantheist is not personal.
The god(s) of the pantheist has/have no concern about human sin and make no
provision for it. Nor does it/they inspire any particular kind of
organized progress. How much progress did Europe make, intellectually and
technologically prior to the advent of Christianity? What Gods did they
worship? A variety of pagan deities that inhabited trees, forests, etc.
I'm not sure it would qualify as pantheism, but I think it's close enough.
>The God of the theist would be just one among many plausible gods and
>a not even the most plausible one at that. In that case men who
>believed in a deistic or even a pantheistic god would not be "without
>excuse" (Rom 1:20).
You certainly are pessimistic for a Christian.
>
>I therefore make this Popperian risky prediction that the naturalist
>will *never* *ever* be able to make a self-replicating molecule
>(really a molecular *system*) in vitro, by simple chemical and
>physical laws and the inherent properties of matter, without the
>crucial role of human intelligent design.
I suspect you're right. But if you're wrong, I for one will continue to
preach the gospel, because I believe that spiritual issues are more
fundamental than issues of mechanics.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)