On Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:51:26 -0700, Neal K. Roys wrote:
NR>Hello. This is my first contribution to this reflector.
Welcome to the Reflector!
NR>I was talking with Phil Johnson after his presentation at the
>Cornerstone Christian Music Festival a few weeks ago. He told me
>about a recent statement on the definition of evolution published in
>1995 by the 8000 member National Association of Biology Teachers
>(NABT).
I would appreciate hearing from you publicly or privately how this
went. I was praying for Phil's presentation at this Festival. BYW
PJ's itinerary is on his home page at:
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/LIBRARY/JOHNSON/home.html
and also:
http://www.iclnet.org/origins/menus/johnsked.html
NR>The excerpt below implies that evolution is, by definition,
>identical with atheism. Teachers in the TE camp can teach that God
>has something to do with evolution, but such claims contradict the
>atheistic meaning attached to the word *evolution* by those who
>actually have the cultural authority to define it: e.g. the NABT,
>Gould, Dawkins, and authors of leading Biology texts such as Douglas
>Futuyma, whose definitions are equally atheistic.
Yes. The "E" in "TE" only survives by blurring the distinction
between what "evolution" means in the general scientific community
(ie. an undirected, purposeless, natural process) and what they mean
by it (ie. a God-guided, purposeful, natural process). It would be
better if TE's used a different word than "evolution" to describe
their position.
NR>Here's the excerpt:
>==============================================================
>National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)
>
>STATEMENT ON TEACHING EVOLUTION
>
>[Adopted by the Board of Directors, March 15, 1995.]
>
>The National Association of Biology Teachers, an
>organization of science teachers, endorses the following tenets
>of science, evolution and biology education:
>
>The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
>*unsupervised*, *impersonal*, unpredictable and natural process of
>temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
>natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
>environments.
>[emphasis added by NR]
>==========================end of excerpt===================================
That is interesting. How do they know it is "unsupervised"? It is
one thing to say that science by its focus on natural causes
(methodological naturalism) *cannot detect* an extra-natural
Supervisor, and quite another to claim that there is *no*
extra-natural Supervisor (metaphysical naturalism).
But it just confirms what the real, not so hidden, agenda of
naturalistic evolution is, namely an attempt to "suppress the truth"
(Rom 1:18) that "the things that are made" (Rom 1:20), plainly (Rom
1:19) and "clearly" (Rom 1:20) reveal an "invisible" Creator (Rom
1:20). This was Darwin's *number one* goal in extrapolating his
General Theory of Macroevolution in the guise of a Special Theory
of Microevolution:
"in the earlier editions of my 'Origin of Species' I perhaps
attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the
survival of the fittest...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...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. My emphasis).
NR>If *unsupervised* and *impersonal* don't rule out TE, then look at
>the conspicuous absence of the supernatural in the list of that
>which *affects* evolution: natural selection, chance, historical
>contingencies and changing environments.
Of course there is nothing in "genetic modification", "natural
selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
environments" that rules out supervision. That it is "unpredictable"
to man does not mean it is purposeless to God.
NR>According to the NABT, God is, as Phil Johnson puts it,
>"permanently unemployed" at best.
Yes. If the NABT claims that "The diversity of life on earth is the
outcome of...an unsupervised...natural process", they are either
saying there is no God, or that if there is a God, there is nothing
for Him to do.
NR>So if you're in the TE camp, please consider rejecting TE on the
>basis that it refutes itself.
Yes. Johnson claims that because "theistic evolution" accepts the
naturalistic way of thinking about reality, it really is a
form of "theistic naturalism":
"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is
that the conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking. The
problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science,
but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists
employ to derive those doctrines...What they have done is to assume
as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes
can do all the work of biological creation because, according to
their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined
their task as finding the most plausible-or least
implausible-description of how biological creation could occur in the
absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may
not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is
profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is
inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That
is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position
is not "theistic evolution," but rather theistic naturalism. Under
either name, it is a disastrous error. (Phillip E. Johnson,
"Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin", Christianity Today,
October 24, 1994, p26)
NR>Or at least wait to affirm TE until after you aquire cultural
>authority and use it to change the meaning of the word evolution.
Agreed. As long as "evolution" means *God-less* development to
scientists and the man in the street, TEs are doomed to be
misunderstood.
NR>There is a word for God having something to do with the origin and
>devolopment of life: It's *creation*.
AMEN! :-)
NR>A few other exerpts from the same publication follow:
>
>=========================================
>As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent
>scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), "Nothing in biology makes
>sense except in the light of evolution." This often-quoted
>assertion accurately illuminates the central, unifying role of
>evolution in nature, and therefore in biology.
>
>Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically-honest manner
>requires classroom discussions and laboratory experiences on
>evolution. Modern biologists constantly study, ponder and
>deliberate the patterns, mechanisms and pace of evolution, but
>they do not debate evolution's occurrence.
This is double-speak worthy of Orwell's "1984" Ministry of Truth! :-)
If they don't yet know (after 137 years) "the patterns, mechanisms
and pace of evolution", then how do they know that it *was*
"evolution"?
NR>The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined
>with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy and geology,
>provide exhaustive examples and powerful evidence for genetic
>variation, natural selection, speciation, extinction and other
>well-established components of current evolutionary theory.
The sceptic might ask, if all these "modern techniques...exhaustive
examples...powerful evidence...and...well-established components"
still don't enable them to know "the patterns, mechanisms and pace of
evolution", then perhaps there is something wrong with their major
premise, that they "do not debate", namely "evolution's occurrence"?
NR>Scientific deliberations and modifications of these components
>clearly demonstrate the vitality and scientific integrity of
>evolution and the theory that explains it.
Note that "evolution" has been elevated to a primal fact of nature
and there is a "theory that explains it"! This is the sort of
muddled thinking that even the best of them are victims of:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and
theories are different things...." (Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and
Horse's Toes", Penguin: London, 1984, p254)
NR>FYI, I'm a christian, and I endorse the Progressive Creationist
>view.
Well, as far as this PC is concerned, you are *doubly welcome*! :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------