Re: Theistic realism
geoffrey howells (ghowells@banda.ntu.edu.au)
Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:38:11 +0930 (GMT)>
> Geoff: Here is that post you sent me.
>
>
>
> *****
>
> Sender: ghowells@banda.ntu.edu.au
> Received: from banda.ntu.edu.au (banda.ntu.edu.au [138.80.128.16]) by
> dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
> id BAA21491; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:47:35 -0400
> Received: by banda.ntu.edu.au; id AA05399; Sat, 3 Aug 1996 15:11:28 +0930
> From: geoffrey howells <ghowells@banda.ntu.edu.au>
> Message-Id: <9608030541.AA05399@banda.ntu.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: Ruse admits Evolution is a Secular Religion
> To: 70672.1241@compuserve.com (Jim Bell)
> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 15:11:28 +0930 (GMT)
> Cc: edn482-1@pellew.ntu.edu.au
> In-Reply-To: <960802211831_70672.1241_FHP78-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Jim Bell"
> at Aug 2, 96 05:18:31 pm
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Length: 4532
>
> >
> > Neal K. Roys writes:
> >
> > <<Evolution, as a word, has never been an appropriate vehicle for
> > transporting the glory of God to the world. TE is an oxymoron.>>
> >
> > and
> >
> > <<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. ... Let's not help
> > naturalist's efforts to mix Christianity with Secular Religion>>
> >
> > Very good points, Neal. You argue about the appropriateness of labels. This
> is
> > a crucial issue, as we all know from the public square (e.g., the squabble
> > over "anti-abortion" v. "pro-life.")
> >
> > You are absolutely right that "evolution" is a loaded word. Loaded with
> > atheism, naturalism and a more than a pinch of intolerance. When "Theistic
> > Evolution" was coined, back in the late 1800's, it was an obvious concession
>
> > to the naturalists. "OK, I guess you guys are right about this. But we'll
> tack
> > on God so we can salvage the Faith."
> >
> > OTOH, "creationist" is a loaded term. Witness the lengths opponents to
> people
> > like Phil Johnson and Mike Behe go to slap "creationist" on them. Get them
> > marginalized. Ignore their arguments.
> >
> > So how do we choose a label?
> >
> > Carefully. With as little baggage as possible. That's why I like Phil
> > Johnson's "Theistic Realism." It encompasses everything--science,
> metaphysics,
> > the whole boat. It's new, and hasn't been weighted down with false meanings.
>
> >
> > I also like the looks I get. "So, Mr. Bell, are you a creationist or an
> > evolutionist?"
> >
> > "I'm a realist."
> >
> > "Excuse me?"
> >
> > "A Theistic Realist."
> >
> > "Well, just what does that mean?"
> >
> > And then I get to define everything from the bottom up! Instead of having to
>
> > defend a lot of turf I'm not even standing on.
> >
> > Anyway, you've thrown down a good challenge. "Evolution" should be dumped
> from
> > our side of the table.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >Dear Jim,
> Im a newbie to this discussion group. I hold a batchelor's degree in
> science majoring in Geology and am at present training to become a
> science/maths teacher.
>
> I find your idea of 'theistic realism' very interesting. Although, shock,
> horrorI consider myself a creationist and even worse a young earth
> creationist, I am also very much a realist. Some creationist science is very
> poor and unconvincing.Nevertheless on!
> biblical grounds I find their arguments very convincing. TE to me is simply
> compromise.
>
> I consider evolutionary science to be weak in the following areas:
>
> 1. 2nd law of Thermodynamics style arguments. I have never come across an evo-
> lutionry refutation I found convincing. There are simply no precedents for
> com-
> plexity and order from nothing in our present understanding of science. Even
> th-eir saying that evolution is not a random process does not hold water. The
> idea that natural selection operating on a random (and destructive) process
> like mutation could prod!
> uce the spectacular order and perfection of the natural world, defies common
> sense.
>
> 2. Ditto for arguments from information science. Everyone knows static is the
> enemy of computer technology. Where did the billions of bits of information
> found in genes originally come from?
>
> 3.'Micro-evolution'. It seems that in order to sound more reasonable evolution
> has encroached into the area of selective breeding. Surely 'micro-evolution'
> is
> simply the same as that which farmers have been performing for thousands of
> years to improve their bloodlines. The only difference is that the selection
> process is natural.
>
> 4. The fact, as pointed out in Micheal Denton's book'Evolution a Theory in
> Crisis' that the mechanisms which make up a creature are interdependant.
> Change one in a small way and the creature wont 'work' any more. For example
> the giraffes neck needs a comp!
> lex series of valves in it's blood vessels to prevent the blood pressure from
> causing it to faint when it feeds on grass. These two mechanisms
> must have evolved at the same tim or not at all.
>
> 5. With reference to 3. above when most people think of evolution they are
> thinking of macro-evolution, so then the scientist says "Aha but weve observed
> evolution" (meaning micro-evolution). I think it is rather deceptive.
>
> I would appreciate any comments.
>
> Yours in Theistic Realism
> Geoff Howells
> Ghowells@banda.ntu.edu.au
> Darwin, NT
> Australia
> plexity and order from nothing in our present understanding of science. Isnt
> th-ere also a part of the equation which requires Work (intelligent) to be
> perfo
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>