If you ever learn to be much more intellectually careful and precise, you
will be an effective advocate for your views. In the meantime, your
messages are painful to read. So often, -so- often you settle on statements
that are rhetorically appealing, but just misstate things miserably. I'm
afraid this is more of the same in that respect.
Aside from misunderstandings and bizarre assertions (-one-
example: -Christian- evolutionists make "*naturalistic metaphysical
assumptions*" [your emphasis]), you ask a question that I'll answer:
What are the main issues between Theistic Evolutionists/Evolutionary
Creationists on the one hand, and Progressive Creationists/"Theistic
Realists" on the other?
Here's what comes to my mind:
(1) Is evolutionary theory a -plausible- or even -physically -possible--
explanation for the development (and perhaps also origin) of all life? ECs:
typically yes, typically yes*; PCs no, often no.
(2) Is it proper to restrict explanations in natural science to natural
forces and objects? Or to ask it another way, is it IMproper to include
divine, miraculous intervention -in theories of natural science-? ECs: yes;
PCs, No (if they consider PC to be a purely scientific theory) or probably
Yes (if they don't).
(3) Is it critically important to Xian theology that Adam and Eve (a) be the
literal first and only biological parents of the entire human race, and (b)
have no animal ancestry? ECs: -typically- no (but sometimes yes), and no;
PCs: typically yes, and typically yes.
There are other issues too (nature of the fall, general reading of Genesis
1-3), but these are the three most important that come to my mind right now.
--John
*How could an EC answer these no?? Simply if he takes EC to be his approach
to science, but suspects it may not be true, or may not even be physically
possible. He may consider it to be by far the best or only useful
scientific theory, but probably not the ultimate truth: perhaps PC might be
true, e.g., but not scientifically worthwhile. (This is analogous to a
brain researcher who believes some sort of dualism is -true- but
scientifically -useless-, at least right now.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Jones [mailto:sejones@ibm.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 9:47 PM
> To: Evolution Reflector
> Cc: John E. Rylander
> Subject: RE: The main issue between Theistic Naturalists and Theistic
> Realists (was God could have ...)
>
>
> John
>
> 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)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>