On Wed, 18 Mar 98 14:42:06 -0500, Steven Schafersman wrote:
SS>Members of this email list may be interested in something I
>posted on the web at
><http://www.muohio.edu/~schafesd/documents/creationist-
reply.htmlx>.
Thanks for this post, and welcome to the Reflector! I am replying to
your post cc. the student authors of the above web site. I have no
objection if you or they post it to that web site.
Since you are a lurker on this list, you may be aware that I am a
creationist, specifically a Mediate Creationist. My position is similar
to that of Phil Johnson:
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God
exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but
who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary
process instead. I am not a defender of creation-science..." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p14).
My theological views are not threatened by Darwinist evolution, even
the 100% fully naturalistic `blind watchmaker' variety, as the
Biblical God in whom I believe, is fully in control of all natural
phenomena, even those which appear random to humans (Proverbs 16:33;
1Ki 22:34). I have no problem with an age of the Earth of billions
of years, and common descent if it can be proved. However, I regard
the Darwinist theory of biological design by random mutations and
natural selection as an imaginative, beautiful and seductive theory,
but one unfortunately which seems to me to be slain by too many ugly
facts!
The best hypothesis that fits all the facts is that of a Progressive,
Mediate Creation by a supernatural Intelligent Designer. I identify
strongly with a statement by Christian geneticist David Wilcox:
"I have no metaphysical necessity driving me to propose the
miraculous action of the evident finger of God as a scientific
hypothesis. In my world view, all natural forces and events are fully
contingent on the free choice of the sovereign God. Thus, neither an
adequate nor an inadequate "neo-Darwinism (as mechanism) holds
any terrors. But that is not what the data looks like. And I feel no
metaphysical necessity to exclude the evident finger of God." (Wilcox
D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or
Philosophy?", 1994, p215)
Indeed, it seems to me that philosophical naturalists like yourself,
accept naturalistic evolution, not because the evidence for it is
sufficient, but because the main alternative, Divine creation, is
philosophically unacceptable to them. Here are some old quotes
which express this thought candidly (modern evolutionists are more
circumspect):
"Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been
observed to occur...or can be proved by logical coherent evidence,
but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly
incredible." (Watson D.M.S., "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123, 1929,
233, in Wysong R.L., "The Creation-Evolution Controversy", 1976,
p31).
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because
the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
(Keith Sir A., in Wysong, 1976, p31)
As Johnson points out, if God is ruled out in advance in the very
*definitions* of science, then something like Darwinist evolution just
has to be true, regardless of the evidence:
"Richard Dawkins calls the process of creation by mutation and
selection "the blind watchmaker," by which label he means that a
purposeless, materialistic designing force substitutes for the
"watchmaker" deity of natural theology. The creative power of the
blind watchmaker is supported only by very slight evidence, such as
the famous example of a moth population in which the percentage of
dark moths increased during a period when the birds were better able
to see light moths against the smoke-darkened background trees.
This may be taken to show that natural selection can do something,
but not that it can create anything that was not already in
existence. Even such slight evidence is more than sufficient,
however, because evidence is not really necessary to prove something
that is practically self-evident. The existence of a potent blind
watchmaker follows deductively from the philosophical premise that
nature had to do its own creating. There can be argument about the
details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like
Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence."
(Johnson P.E., "What is Darwinism?", Symposium at Hillsdale College,
in November 1992, Bauman ed., "Man and Creation: Perspectives on
Science and Theology", Hillsdale College Press: Hillsdale, 1993.
http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/wid.htm)
SS>I usually don't take the time to respond to creationists (for
>reasons I explain on that webpage, and which is why I only lurk on
>this list and don't reply to the many mistakes, misrepresentations,
>and misunderstandings expressed here by creationists)
This (amongst other things) is what makes me suspect that Darwinist
evolution is a pseudoscience, because in order to survive it neeeds
to continually denigrate its creationist rival. A *real* science
would welcome criticism from any quarter, and be quite relaxed about
following the truth wherever it leads. Indeed, Darwinism should
*help* creationists to criticise evolution, by candidly admitting
evolution's weak points, so that others can judge for themselves
whether its true:
"In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of
Technology. Feynman told the graduating students to cultivate `a
kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty-a kind of leaning over
backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should
report everything that you think might make it invalid- not only what
you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain
your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by
some other experiment, and how they worked-to make sure the other
fellow can tell they have been eliminated...In summary, the idea is to
try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of
your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in
one particular direction or another.'" (Johnson P.E., "Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., 1997, p46)
Indeed, Darwinists by the very vehemence of their overreaction
to creationists, show that it is really their secular `religion'
that is threatened:
"When this book was first published, in 1992, it was greeted with a
storm of controversy no less passionate than the debate which met
the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution one hundred and
thirty years ago...according to Darwinist Richard Dawkins, writing in
the New Statesman, the book is 'loony', 'stupid', 'drivel and its author
a 'harmless fruit- cake' who 'needs psychiatric help' ... I expected it to
arouse controversy, because it reports on scientific research that is
itself controversial, and because it deals with Darwinism-always a
touchy subject with the biology establishment. I didn't expect science
to welcome an inquisitive reporter, but I did expect the controversy
to be conducted at a rational level; that people would rightly demand
to inspect my evidence more closely and question me one tbe
correctness of this or that fact. To my horror, I found that instead of
challenging me, orthodox scientists simply set about seeing me off
'their' property. Richard Dawkins, a reader in zoology at Oxford
University, wrote his review for the New Statesman 'lest the paper
commission someone else who would treat it as a serious scientific
treatise'....Dawkins devoted two thirds of his review to attacking my
hardback publishers, Fourth Estate, for their irresponsibility in daring
to accept a book critising Darwinism, and the remainder to
assassinating my character in the sort of terms quoted above.
Dawkins is employed at one of Britain's most distinguished
universities and is responsible for the education of future generations
of students. Yet this is not the language of a responsible scientist and
teacher. It is the language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith
has been profaned." (Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the
Myth of Darwinism", Corgi, 1993, preface)
SS>but in this case I made an exception--because the creationist is
>a student at the university at which I teach, and he advertised his
>creationist website in our biology building!
What's wrong with that? I thought science is supposed to be open to
challenge? You write as though your biology building is a sacred
`temple' and this vile creationist has profaned it! This supports
my thesis that Darwinism functions as a type of secular religion
with Darwinist professors in the role of secular `priests', whose
mission in life is defending the `sacred truth' of Darwinism!
SS>I would like to make one comment to this list, however, about
>something that was discussed earlier: contrary to someone's
>statement, we philosophical naturalist, materialist, secular humanist
>types do not hate creationists of any kind, nor do we seek to
>disparage their personal religious and scientific beliefs.
Some "naturalist, materialist...types" do give the impression that they
"hate" "creationists of any kind". For example, Dawkins comes close
to hatred when he says:
"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims
not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane
(or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)" (Dawkins R., "New
York Times, Review of Johanson D. & Edey M., "Blueprints", 1989),
in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p9)
And as for yourself, if you are not actually seeking "to disparage"
creationists "personal religious and scientific beliefs", you give a good
imitation of it! At the end of your article in Godfrey's "Scientists
Confront Creationism", you say of creationist (and indeed of
antievolutionists), that they are arrogant and self-righteous:
"Apparently, some things never change, and antievolutionists
continue to use their restless intellects to formulate factual distortions
and specious arguments to defend their creationist doctrine...the
arrogance and self-righteousness of the true believers can be
explained. They regard themselves as being created in the image of
God, and act like it." (Schafersman S.D., "Fossils, Stratigraphy, and
Evolution: Consideration of a Creationist Argument", in Godfrey
L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism", 1983, p243).
BTW you are also misreprenting what creationists say about the image
of God, giving the impression that they claim that *only* they are
created in the image of God. In fact the Bible says that *all*
human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1;
9:6), not just creationists.
SS>But we are extremely dismayed and angered by the attempts of
>some creationists to use politics, elected officials, the courts, and the
>power of the states and school boards to force their creationist
>views on unsuspecting public school students, who we believe have
>a right to a legitimate and trustworthy science education, and we
>will therefore oppose such creationist efforts.
What is this but disparaging "creationists...personal religious and
scientific beliefs"? Why shouldn't creationists have the same rights
as evolutionists in trying to gain a hearing for their beliefs in a
pluralistic, democratic society? In any event, what are you worried
about? I would have thought that if evolution is true, you should
welcome creationism being taught alongside evolution, since that
would solve the problem once and for all of the majority of
people believing in creation, rather than evolution. The fact
that most evolutionists do everything they can to prevent creationists
getting a hearing indicates that evolutionists deep down are insecure
that their theory could stand up to open criticism and comparison
with a broad creation model.
SS>Furthermore, contrary to the same statement, we respect theistic
>evolutionists, because they appreciate the methods and evidence of
>science and because their private religious views are irrelevant
>(as far as we are concerned) to those appreciations.
So the only "creationists" you "respect" are those "theistic
evolutionists" whose "private religious views are irrelevant" to
"science"? I presume this means that you do not "respect" those
"creationists" whose "private religious views" *are* relevant to
"science"? That is those who think that God might have actually
*done* something!
SS>We tend to look at someone's religious views as their personal
>philosophy, and since we naturalistic humanists have our own
>explicit philosophy, we understand better than most that our
>individual philosophies are irrelevant to the practice and conclusions
>of science, since the whole point of science is to explore the
>universe and discover reliable knowledge by a method that (contrary
>to the postmodernists) eliminates--or tries to eliminate--subjective
>influences such as personal philosophies.
The Catch-22 here is that you carry over your naturalistic philosophy
into science, and assume that: 1. materialism = matter is all there is,
and 2. naturalism = nature is all there is. A necessary corollary of
these two unproven and unprovable philosophical assumptions is that:
1. there is no God; and 2. even if there was a God, He couln't
guide or intervene in the chain of natural cause and effect.
SS>Of course, religious supernaturalists will have personal
>conflicts with philosophical naturalism, but that's their problem, not
>ours, and it doesn't seem to stop theistic evolutionists from
>appreciating scientific evidence and accepting the fact of evolution.
It is *your* problem if your fundamental naturalistic philosophical
assumptions are wrong and there really *is* a God who created the
whole universe, and who has guided and intervened in the history of
life.
Let's face it, if the creationist is wrong and when he dies there
is nothing, he has had a good life and has lost nothing. But if the
atheist/agnostic evolutionist is wrong, he has lost *everything*!
SS>In short, we naturalistic humanists have a "live--let live"
>philosophy, and don't want to take the time to become involved in
>legal, political, educational, and philosophical controversies unless
>we are forced to by events and the practices of others (which means
>that we usually become involved in such controversies).
The "naturalistic humanists" idea of "live--let live" is the same as
any power-elite has! It will allow those who do not share their
atheistic philosophy to "live", just so long as they do not become
"involved in legal, political, educational, and philosophical
controversies"! IOW they won't be `shot at' as long
as they stay on the `reservation' defined for them by the elite!
SS>Without claiming to speak for her, I believe that Genie Scott of
>NCSE shares this viewpoint, and she has gone further than most of
>us would in accomodating the religious sensibilities of others.
Eugenie Scott no doubt realises that 90% of the voters are theists
of some sort, and only 10% are non-theists! To come right out with
it and tell this majority what she really thinks-that their God is a
figment of their imagination-would not be good politics, and might
hurt science funding!
Next I will comment on your web page posting. Because of its size
and the demands on my time, I will break it up into chunks and deal
with each chunk separately. I will probably not answer any responses
to my posts until I first have posted them all.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------