>(NR) So if you're in the TE camp, please consider rejecting TE on the
>basis >that it refutes itself. Or at least wait to affirm TE until after
>you aquire >cultural authority and use it to change the meaning of the
>word evolution.
>(GM)I agree whole heartedly with you about the purported statement. It should
>be condemned. But you can't condemn the innocent because of the guilty.
Thanks for your feedback. But I'm not condemning innocent people. I'm
merely making some requests.
1) Please have the courage to recognize the atheistic meaning attached to
the word evolution.
2) Please also notice the naturalistic religious philosophy underlying
evolution.
Phil Johnson has successfully helped Michael Ruse recognize these points.
Ruse is one of evolution's heros for testifying before a court in an
Arkansas remove-creationism-from-the-science-classroom case. The basis of
Ruse's argument was that Creationism is not science because it rests on
certain unprovable assumptions.
Take a look at what Michael Ruse admitted about the _unprovable_
assumptions underlying evolution in a public setting after interacting with
Phil Johnson.
================excerpt of Speech by Michael Ruse===================
Speech by Professor Michael Ruse
Saturday, February 13, 1993
1993 Annual Meeting of the AAAS
At the symposium "The New Antievolutionism"
Eugenie Scott: Our next speaker is Dr. Michael Ruse, from the
Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario.
[...]
Michael Ruse is a philosopher of science, particularly of the
evolutionary sciences. He's almost a person who needs no
introduction in this context. He's the author of several books
on Darwinism and evolutionary theory, including an analysis of
scientific creationism entitled <But Is It Science?>
[...]
Ruse: So, I was intending, as I say, to come along and talk about
Phillip Johnson. What happened between then and now, on the way,
was that a few months ago I was invited to participate by some
evangelicals in what was a sort of weekend session that they'd
got, and Phillip Johnson and I were put face to face. And as I
always find when I meet creationists or non-evolutionists or
critics or whatever, I find it a lot easier to hate them in print
than I do in person. And in fact I found -- I must confess -- I
found Phillip Johnson to be a very congenial person, with a fund
of very funny stories about Supreme Court justices, some of which
may even be true, unlike his scientific claims. We did debate,
and in fact I thought that we had, as others said afterwards,
both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, I thought that we had
what was really quite, and I want to be quite fair about this, I
thought we had a really quite constructive interchange.
[...]
But we did talk much more about the whole question of
metaphysics, the whole question of philosophical bases. And what
Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of
position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is
metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of
position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like
Gish or somebody like that. And to a certain extent, I must
confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in
the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been
coming to this kind of position myself. And, in fact, when I
first thought of putting together my collection But Is It
Science?, I think Eugenie was right, I was inclined to say, well,
yes, creationism is not science and evolution is, and that's the
end of it, and you know just trying to prove that.
[...]
Now I'm starting to feel -- I'm no more of a creationist now than
I ever was, and I'm no less of an evolutionist now that I ever
was -- but I'm inclined to think that we should move our debate
now onto another level, or move on. And instead of just sort of,
just -- I mean I realize that when one is dealing with people,
say, at the school level, or these sorts of things, certain sorts
of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics,
or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these
things, I think that we should recognize, both historically and
perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has
certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science,
which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law --
but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we
should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.
[...]
Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say, evolutionary
theory, and of course this was brought out I think rather nicely
by the talk just before me, it's certainly been the case that
evolution has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly
with elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us who teach
philosophy of religion always say there's no way of defining
religion by a neat, necessary and sufficient condition. The best
that you can do is list a number of characteristics, some of
which all religions have, and none of which any religion,
whatever or however you sort of put it. And certainly, there's
no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the
present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as
something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a
secular religion.
I think, for instance, of the most famous family in the history
of evolution, namely, the Huxleys. I think of Thomas Henry
Huxley, the grandfather, and of Julian Huxley, the grandson.
Certainly, if you read Thomas Henry Huxley, when he's in full
flight, there's no question but that for Huxley at some very
important level, evolution and science generally, but certainly
evolution in particular, is functioning a bit as a kind of
secular religion. Interestingly, Huxley -- and I've gone through
his own lectures, I've gone through two complete sets of lecture
notes that Huxley gave to his students--Huxley never talked about
evolution when he was actually teaching. He kept evolution for
affairs like this, and when he was talking at a much more popular
sort of level. Certainly, though, as I say, for Thomas Henry
Huxley, I don't think there's any question but that evolution
functioned, at a level, as a kind of secular religion.
And there's no question whatsoever that for Julian Huxley, when
you read <Evolution, the Modern Synthesis>, that Julian Huxley
saw evolution as a kind of progressive thing upwards. I think
Julian Huxley was certainly an atheist, but he was at the same
time a kind of neo-vitalist, and he bound this up with his
science. If you look both at his printed stuff, and if you go
down to Rice University which has got all his private papers,
again and again in the letters, it comes through very strongly
that for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of
secular religion.
I think that this -- and I'm not saying this now particularly in
a critical sense, I'm just saying this in a matter-of-fact
sense -- I think that today also, for more than one eminent
evolutionist, evolution in a way functions as a kind of secular
religion.
And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level,
evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of
naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude
miracles and these sorts of things, come what may. Now, you
might say, does this mean it's just a religious assumption, does
this mean it's irrational to do something like this. I would
argue very strongly that it's not. At a certain pragmatic level,
the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And that if certain
things do work, you keep going with this, and that you don't
change in midstream, and so on and so forth. I think that one
can in fact defend a scientific and naturalistic approach, even
if one recognizes that this does include a metaphysical
assumption to the regularity of nature, or something of this
nature.
So as I say, I think that one can defend it as reasonable, but I
don't think it helps matter by denying that one is making it.
And I think that once one has made such an assumption, one has
perfect powers to turn to, say, creation science, which claims to
be naturalistic also, and point out that it's wrong. I think one
has every right to show that evolutionary theory in various forms
certainly seems to be the most reasonable position, once one has
taken a naturalistic position. So I'm not coming here and
saying, give up evolution, or anything like that.
But I am coming here and saying, I think that philosophically
that one should be sensitive to what I think history shows,
namely, that evolution, just as much as religion -- or at least,
leave "just as much," let me leave that phrase -- evolution, akin
to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical
assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I
guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more
sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal
with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not
to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we
can go, as we move on from there.
Well, I've been very short, but that was my message, and I think
it's an important one.
Eugenie Scott: Any questions?
[There is a momentary silence.]
Ruse: State of shock!
===============end of experpts===================
Are the TE's on this reflector in a state of shock?
So what are we going to do now? Draft a letter to Michael Ruse to convince
him that Evolution is not a secular religion?
Evolution, as a word, has never been an appropriate vehicle for
transporting the glory of God to the world. TE is an oxymoron.
I've noticed in the past year and on the archives that in all the effort
Loren and Stephen and others have put into defining TE and NE and others,
we've never carefully defined E--Evolution. This oversight has resulted in
our cooperating with the desires of atheist scientists to keep the true
meaning of evolution hidden. If they can't overthrow Christianity
outright, why not just mix into Christianity a little naturalistic
philosophy when no one's looking?
Their efforts are covert. Remember what Ruse said: "it may not be a good
thing to admit in a court of law." Of course not. That would be
embarrassing. And it would be embarrassing to renounce TE after so long.
But it needs to go. Let's not perpetuate a lie even after it's been
exposed.
Almost everytime I try to introduce an atheist to Jesus, they say stuff
like, "but what about evolution." Why do they say this? Because they
suddenly want to change the subject and talk about _science_? No. It's
because they--even as high school students--recognize evolution represents
a religious philosophy that competes with Christianity, not one that can be
accomodated by Christianity. According Ruse, all evolutionists know this.
Did you notice Ruse's admission that all evolutionsists know evolution is
religious in nature?
Read again carefully.
"But I am coming here and saying, I think that philosophically
that one should be sensitive to what I think history shows,
namely, that evolution, just as much as religion -- or at least,
leave "just as much," let me leave that phrase -- evolution, akin
to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical
assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.
***I guess we all knew that*** . . ."
As Christians, we don't need to get mixed up in secular religion. The word
evolution (as in Macro) is ruined as a vehicle for truth.
Let's just call ourselves creationists, and then qualify the term as needed.
We need to recognize E is atheism, renounce TE, continue doing authentic
science, or quit--that's up to you, and stop being responsible for
perpetuating the confusion caused TE is endorsed. It's the sort of
confusion that would result if someone said, "sure you can have your
religious beliefs, as long as you don't really believe they're true."
That's what Stephen Jay Gould proposes when he says stuff equivalent to
,"Science is ok, Religion is ok. They're mutually exclusive of each other.
But that's ok."
That's not ok.
Let's not help naturalist's efforts to mix Christianity with Secular Religion
Sincerely,
Neal K. Roys
Math Teacher
Youth Pastor
Mundelein, IL