On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:11:05 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
Again I have had to move my comments from the foot of your message so
that I (and others) can make sense of your reply. It would help if you
followed normal Reflector practice by inserting your response *after* my
words. Thanks.
[...]
>>SJ>...Johnson (and I for that matter) believe that God COULD have
>>>worked "through a natural evolutionary process" but he (and I) do
>>>not believe that He MUST have...That is the main difference
>>>between Johnson's (and my) Theistic Realist position and Glenn's
>>>Theistic Naturalist position."
[...]
>>JR>For those not oblivious to finer points: no Christian in the
>>>discussion, so far as I know anyway, believes that God -had- to use
>>>evolution.
>SJ>On the contrary, *the whole thrust* of Glenn's posts is that "God -
>>had- to use evolution". He *automatically* assumes evolution and
>>*never* even seriously considers supernatural creation as an option.
>>What's more, Glenn attacks relentlessly and destructively any
>>Christian apologist like Johnson or Ross who proposes *any* form of
>>supernatural creation.
JR>Stephen, why don't you just ask any of the Christian evolutionary
>creationists on this list if they believe what you repeatedly assert they
>believe, indeed, what you fatuously assert is "the main issue". You'll
>discover that you're wrong, as you -should- already have known, and -
>would-know if you were following the arguments.
I have been debating with "the Christian evolutionary creationists on this
list" for the best part of the last three years! I think I can legitimately claim
that I *know* by now what they believe from their own statements!
Indeed, I have in fact quoted examples of same.
And as for your claim that it is not "the main issue", that "TEs...1)
automatically assume a naturalistic evolutionary explanation, and 2)
criticise those who don't..." then I would like to know what *is* "the main
issue" between TEs and TRs.
JR>Either you incorrectly remember others' statements, or you're just
>making this up because it sounds good (possible), or (most likely) you're
>putting your or Johnson's "ECs -must- think this!!" words into the mouths
>of others. That is very unfair and either sloppy (probably) or dishonest
>(probably not).
The problem for your argument is that I *correctly* "remember others'
statements" and in fact I quoted some of them.
JR>What you should say is that -you don't understand how- Christians can
>staunchly defend evolutionary theory without that premise.
The point is that I *do* "understand how- Christians can staunchly defend
evolutionary theory". It is *precisely* because of the *naturalistic
metaphysical assumptions* they make up front which is *amply*
demonstrated time and time again in their posts.
JR>That assertion would be true (right?), perspicuous, and perspicacious;
>unlike your current assertion, which is both (1) false, and (2) about EC's
>thinking instead of your own, and which is therefore refuted every time an
>EC authentically reports otherwise. (Or are you just claiming they're
>lying?? Now -that- would be a step forward in the discussion....)
I defintely am *not* "claiming" that TE/"EC's" are "lying". I have
repeatedly stated what I am "claiming" namely that TE/EC's "automatically
assume a naturalistic evolutionary explanation". Your bluster and failure to
even recognise what I am claiming (which is not an unusual Theistic
Naturalist response BTW) just confirms my point.
JR>No need to reply to this note unless you really feel you have to.
I most definitely *do* "really feel" a "need to reply to this note", since I
regard the topic as "the main issue" between TNs and TRs!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------