RE: Atheistic Science Teaching:TE is an oxymoron

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:58:17 -0500

Steve Clark wrote:
>>Why should you or I let the NABT define evolution for us? NABT wants to
>>attach a nonsupernatural metaphysical mechanism to a scientific model that
>>says NOTHING about natural or supernatural mechanisms. They abuse
>>scientific theory by making a metaphysical extension from it.
>
> Was not the scientific model birthed out of the "nonsupernatural"
>metaphysical philosophy in the first place? It seems to me that
>Lyell-cum-Darwin's preference for uniformitarian historical concepts preceded
>any theory of scientific model re: "the origin of species".

People debate this point. But so what if it was. This simply means that the
error of philosophy began at the beginning of the model. Sure, one can
point to the evolution model and say that it could easily be envisioned as
occuring via completely naturalistic processes that have nothing to do with
a creator. But they forget that any set of data do not prove a theory and
that alternative theories can be invoked. The question is how can you
distinguish a purely naturalistic model of evolution from a model in which a
creator uses evolution as the tool for creation? The observed naturalistic
data may very well equally support both models.

> The root of the term Evolution is naturalistic and atheistic. You cannot
>expect a bad root to bear good fruit. Technically then, Theistic Evolution
>(Naturalism) IS an oxymoron. It appears the TE's are all flailing around
>screaming "they have no authority", "they have no basis" for defining Evolution
>as they do. Historically, they DO have basis, culturally, they DO have
>authority to define E.

Cute metaphor but lets don't let rhetorical vehicles get in the way of the
argument. Certainly atheistic evolutionists have a basis for defining
evolution as a strictly naturalistic event. But, as several of have stated,
this is not part of the scientific model, it is a metaphysical extension of
the science. In other words, they are saying that the science is consistent
with the notion of nonsupernatural creation, and they are correct. There is
a consistency here. However, the converse does not follow--that is,
evolution does not exclude supernaturalistic creation. In sum, they use
their "definition" of evolution to go beyond the scientific model in order
to explain something metaphysical--this then becomes much more than a
"definition."

Basically, they can resort to any definition they want regardless of how
correct it is, but if I, as a scientist do not like it, I don't have to buy
it. And I don't. So why do you?

Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________