Stephen E. Jones wrote:
> Reflectorites
>
> Here is the third part of my response to Jonathan's long post. As
> I said in my original post: "To avoid total confusion, I will avoid
> answering replies to earlier parts until I have finished the
> original post."
Meaning that nobody is confused already???
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:36:25 +1000, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>
> [continued]
>
> JC>Ted Peters is at the Pacific Lutheran seminary, Mark Worthing is at
> >Luther College. Most are interested and write on the broader science-
> >theology issues.
>
> Thanks to Jonathan for this info. I will keep an eye out for their books.
>
> But as for the question of whether these leading TE/ECs are marginalised
> in the Christian community, I did a search of Amazon.com for their most
> recent books on "science-theology" and their sales ranking (a relative
> measure of how many people are buying their books-lowest number is
> highest sales). I know this is a far-from perfect test, but it is the only one I
> can think of and it does give some idea of their relative popularity in the
> community as a whole:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Science and Theology : The New Consonance by Ted Peters (Editor)
> ....Paperback - 288 pages (May 1999) Westview Press; ISBN:
> 0813332591 ..Amazon.com Sales Rank: 193,109
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Theology and the Sciences)
> by Mark William Worthing .Paperback (December 1995)
> Fortress Pr; ISBN: 080062906X ...Amazon.com Sales Rank: 87,743
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 193,109 and 87,743, both these books by Peters and Worthing are fairly
> well down Amazon.com's sales ranking. By contrast Johnson's "Darwin on
> Trial"'s sales rank was 9,106:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson ...Paperback - 220 pages 2nd
> edition (November 1993) Intervarsity Pr; ISBN: 0830813241 ...
> Amazon.com Sales Rank: 9,106
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> and Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" was even higher at 1,376:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Darwin's Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by
> Michael J. Behe... Paperback - 320 pages (March 1998) Touchstone
> Books; ISBN: 0684834936 ... Other Editions: Hardcover
> Amazon.com Sales Rank: 1,376
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
Thanks for this info. I am rather encouraged by the sales of the Peters and the
Worthing books (I admit it, I am someone who seeks glasses as half full not half
empty). Mark Worthing's book is also of course written by an Australian resident
(and who has heard of us??? Both are quite heavy and intended for the specialist,
rather than the lay audience. Neither is a well known public figure. That so many
people have bought these books means that there are a good many people out there
prepared to sit down and read some very solid stuff, which we must all welcome. In
contrast, Johnson's book is by a public figure and both it and Behe's book are
written in a popular style for the general public. I am not surprised that they
have done well. How many other top level technical books in such a specialized field
have done as well? Do you know what these rankings translate into in actual
numbers?
> JC>While you are at it, you should consider reading some of Wolfhart
> Pannenberg as well.
>
> What does Jonathan assume I have not read "some of Wolfhart
> Pannenberg"? I do have one of Pannenberg's theological books, plus
> another anti-evolution/pro-design book where he wrote the
> introduction. I had already intended to look for some of Pannenberg's
> books on the Creation/Evolution issue.
Good on you! Pannenberg is interesting, but not light going, at least for me!
> But nevertheless, at an Amazon.com sales ranking of 192,486,
> Pannenberg also appears marginalised:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Toward a Theology of Nature : Essays on Science and Faith by
> Wolfhart Pannenberg, Ted Peters (Editor) ...Paperback - 166 pages
> (October 1993) Westminster John Knox Pr; ISBN: 0664253849
> ...Amazon.com Sales Rank: 192,486
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
As I have discussed on an earlier spot, I am not discussing the status of these
people in the popular Christian community, I am discussing the position of TE/EC
amongst scientists and theologians. the popularity of their books in the general
public does not speak to their popularity amongst their peers.
> JC>The pope not a theologian? Shhh.... don't tell the catholics.....
>
> Actually, the other list I am on has a number of "catholics" including
> catholic scientists, and philosophers. They have openly disagreed with
> the Pope's recent statements on evolution, and while they recognise he
> is a philosopher (he was originally a philosophy professor in Poland),
> none of them AFAIK consider the Pope to be a theologian. The impression
> I get is that these "catholics" think the Pope is being badly advised
> by TE theologians!
I have not said that I think that the pope is a good theologian. I merely
questioned your statement that he was not one.
> >>JC>Among the scientists Sam Berry, Gillian Prance, Franciso
> >>Ayala.
>
> >SJ>Again I have never heard of Gillian Prance. And AFAIK Ayala is a
> >>no longer a theist. Berry is indeed a TE, but I am not aware of him
> >>making any case for TE/EC within the scientific community.
>
> JC>Gillian is the recently retired director of Kew Gardens and a major
> >researcher on botany and plant ecology, especially of tropical forests.
> >He and his time at Kew was well written up in the journal Nature a
> >few weeks back.
>
> I would appreciate the exact reference. Was his TE/EC *position* "well
> written up in the journal Nature"?
>
I will try and find it on Tuesday and email it to the board. It was not mentioned,
but why should it? The article dealt with his work at Kew. When my departure from
my previous employer was written up on the intranet my role as elder at the local
church was not mentioned, neither was the fact that I was a Christian. Why should
it have been? I would have been surprised (though pleased) it if had!
> Amazon.com has a book on " Evolutionary Biology" co-edited by
> Ghillean Prance. At 1,335,106, it is *very* low on their sales ranking:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Evolutionary Biology by Max K. Hecht, Bruce Wallace, Ghillean T.
> Prance (Editor) .... Hardcover Vol 022 (April 1988) Plenum Pub Corp;
> ISBN: 0306427427 ... Other Editions: Hardcover Amazon.com Sales
> Rank: 1,335,106
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would indeed be impressed if Prance argued his TE/EC position in that
> evolutionary biology book!
>
> JC>Sam Berry is quite open about his Christian commitment in
> >scientific circles. What do you mean him making any case for TE/EC?
>
> Just what I said. If he has a scientific "case for TE/EC" then why doesn't
> he make it? If he doesn't have a scientific "case for TE/EC", then he
> merely confirms what Johnson said above that: "...Most theistic
> evolutionists do not challenge either the conclusions of evolutionary
> biology or its naturalistic methodology, but argue merely that
> evolution by natural processes is compatible with theistic
> religion...what scientific topic is there to talk about?" (Johnson , 1996).
>
> JC>His position is quite properly a theological one, an therefore not
> >one that is necessary in his exclusively scientific publications.
>
> Why should the fact that "His position is...a theological one" entail that
> it is "not...necessary in his...scientific publications"?
>
> And if Berry's TE/EC position is a "theological one" and not a "scientific"
> position, then why should Berry *as a scientist* be cited by TE/ECs as an
> authority on TE/EC?
Because as a leading evolutionary and ecological geneticist he knows what he is
talking about. What other grounds are there for being cited?
> This sounds to me like TE/EC wants to have it both ways. Berry as a scientist
> is allowed to convey his naturalistic evolution position to Christians, but
> as a Christian he is not allowed to convey his theistic evolution position to
> scientists!
>
But as I have said, Sam is active in presenting his faith to his colleagues. He is
also active in saying that Christian faith does not preclude accepting organic
evolution and organic evolution does not preclude Christian faith. What more do you
want?
> JC>Why do you say that Ayala is no longer a theist?
>
> I said that "AFAIK Ayala is no longer a theist" because recently in SCIENCE
> Ayala emphatically denied that he backed "the goal of `understanding God and
> spirituality through science'", and pointed out that he had long ago renounced
> his vows as a priest:
>
> "Constance Holden, in her article "Subjecting belief to the scientific
> method" (News Focus, 21 May, p. 1257), writes that I back the goal of
> "understanding God and spirituality through science." Let me state
> unequivocally that I do not back such a goal. Rather, I maintain that
> science and theology are two completely separate realms of knowledge.
> Holden refers to me as "an ordained priest." While this may be accurately it
> is misleading. I was ordained a priest in my youth but I renounced my vows
> more than three decades ago. Francisco J. Ayala" ("Religion and Science",
> Science, June 11; 1999, 284: 1773)
>
> If Ayala is a TE/EC then he is keeping pretty quiet about it!
Could you give the reference to the science article? I would be most interested in
reading it. The quotes you have are rather ambiguous. I too would have doubts
about understanding God and spirituality through science, although I could argue we
can come to an understanding of some aspects of divine action that way. Does that
mean I am not a theist? People may renounce their vows as priests for many reasons,
not just because they have rejected theism. I know several ex-priests. I would say
we need more evidence on Ayala's score.
> I would appreciate Jonathan's reference to any "work" by Ayala where he
> argues for TE/EC. I have one of Ayala;s books on Genetics, plus another
> that he co-authored on Evolution, and neither make any case for TE/EC.
>
> >>JC>Among those who are both scientists and theologians there is
> >>>Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, and Robert Russell.
>
> >SJ>I have never heard of Robert Russell. Peacocke AFAIK, denies
> >>the Biblical miracles, including the resurrection of Christ, so he is
> >>probably a DE, and I doubt whether Christian TE/ECs would
> >>welcome him as a bedfellow. Polkinhorne is probably a TE, but he
> >>denies some Biblical miracles, although he does accept the
> >>resurrection of Christ. But Polkinhorne is an astrophysicist and has
> >>AFAIK made little or no contribution to *biological* TE/EC.
>
> JC>Robert Russell is at CTNS Berkeley and an important thinker on
> >science, theology and the nature of divine action. He is both scientist
> >and theologian.
>
> Thanks to Jonathan again for this info. But as for Berry, what does it
> matter that Russell "is both scientist and theologian" if TE/EC is a
> "theological" position that has nothing distinctive to contribute to
> his scientific position? And if it does have something to contribute,
> then what is it and why doesn't he contribute it?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Chaos and Complexity : Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action
> (Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vol 2) by Robert John
> Russell (Editor), Nancey Murphy (Editor), Arthur Peacocke (Editor)...
> Amazon.com Sales Rank: 145,629
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> JC>I agree that Peacocke has some unorthodox views (which I most
> >certainly do not share), however he has much of interest and value
> >to say.
>
> That Peacocke might have "much of interest and value to say" means
> nothing of itself. Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould
> have "much of interest and value to say" but if Christianity is true,
> much of what they say is *wrong*!
>
> In any event, Peacocke is also by comparison marginalised, using
> Amazon.com's sales ranking:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Theology for a Scientific Age : Being and Becoming-Natural, Divine and
> Human (Theology and the Sciences) by Arthur Peacocke... Paperback -
> 438 pages Enlarged edition (December 1993) Fortress Pr; ISBN:
> 0800627598 ... Amazon.com Sales Rank: 87,121
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> JC>Also he is not a deist, but rather a panentheist.
>
> I have since bought secondhand a book of Peacocke's in which he
> admits he is indeed "a panentheist":
>
> "the joint emphasis, which I, for one, have been making, both on the role
> of chance in natural creativity and on the immanence of God in these same
> natural processes leads not to deism but to that integration of immanence
> and transcendence that I have already described (pages 95-7) - that 'the
> Being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every
> part of it exists in Him, but . . . that his Being is more than, and is not
> exhausted by the universe' ('pan-en-theism')" (Peacocke A., "God and the
> New Biology", 1986, p99)
>
> Peacocke uses God-talk which sounds like Christian theism, but what he
> really means by the "integration of immanence and transcendence" is that
> there effectively is *only* immanence. Thus he denies that God can work
> miracles, like the Virgin Birth:
>
> "For example, in a recent conference at Notre Dame on `Science and
> Religion in the Post-Positivist Era,' Arthur Peacocke claimed that modern
> cell biology has `radically undermined' the credibility of the virgin birth
> because it would require God's making a Y-chromosome de novo in
> Mary's ovum-in other words, it would have to be a miracle!" (Craig W.L.,
> "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics", 1994, p155)
>
> Since Jonathan nominated Peacocke as among the "leading theologians
> and scientists who argue for TE/EC" is he admitting that the "T" in TE/EC
> can include even "panentheists"? And if so, where does he draw the line?
> If TE can include "panentheists", could TE/EC also include actual
> pantheists and well as deists?
>
> JC>I am surprised that you rule Polkinghorne as someone with little to
> >contribute.
>
> Where did I "rule Polkinhorne [out]"? I said he was "probably a TE" but
> that "has *AFAIK* made little or no contribution to *biological*
> TE/EC." If Polkinhorne *has* in fact "made a contribution to
> *biological* TE/EC" I would be interested to hear what it is, and where
> it was made. I have two of Polkinhorne's books: "One World : The
> Interaction of Science and Theology", and "he Quantum World". In
> neither of them does he say much about biological evolution, and nothing
> at all as far as I can see about theistic evolution.
>
> JC>He may be only a physicist, but he is also well >qualified
> theologically and has thought deeply about >questions of divine action
> and the science-theology >interface.
>
> No doubt. But Jonathan's original claim, to which I responded, was that
> Polkinghorne is among the "many leading theologians and scientists who
> argue for TE/EC." I took the "E" in TE/EC to mean primarily
> *biological* evolution. Now maybe Polkinghorne has made a leading
> contribution to theistic *biological* evolution, but I am not aware of it,
> and neither has Jonathan substantiated it.
>
> JC>I notice you accept Steven Weinberg's opinion as authoritative in
> >this area, even though he too is only a physicist and, unlike
> >Polkinghorne, not only lacks theological or philosophical training, but
> >is also not a Christian. Is this consistent?
>
> Jonathan here is confusing different things. As previously stated, I cited
> Weinberg as a mainstream *non-theistic scientist* giving his *outsider's*
> opinion of TE/ECs, to support my claim that TE/EC is marginalised in
> mainstream science
>
> And moreover I *accepted* Polkinghorne. I said he was "probably a
> TE". My point about Polkinghorne was not denying he was a TE but
> questioning whether he has made a leading contribution to TE/EC as
> Jonathan claimed.
>
> But by Amazon.com's sales ranking criteria, Polkinghorne is less
> marginalised than the others, but he is still way below Johnson and
> Behe:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Science & Theology : An Introduction by J. C. Polkinghorne
> Paperback - 176 pages (January 1999) Fortress Pr; ISBN: 0800631536
> ; ... Amazon.com Sales Rank: 48,613
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >SJ>I would appreciate references to books or journal articles where
> all >>the above claimed TE/ECs have argued the case for TE/EC in the
> >>scientific community.
>
> JC>Exactly what are you asking for here? TE/EC is a theological issue
> >and therefore well argued by these people in the appropriate journals. It
> >is not necessary as part of their scientific reporting. Should I write
> >about "theistic ore genesis" in a paper about gold deposits, or a
> >cosmologist one "theistic stellar evolution"?
>
> Jonathan's claim was that the above were among the "many leading
> theologians and scientists who argue for TE/EC." What I am "asking for
> here" is *references* to"those books or journal articles where" these
> "TE/ECs have argued the case for TE/EC in the scientific community."
>
> If Jonathan cannot supply those references, then I will take it that these
> "leading theologians and scientists who argue for TE/EC" have *not*
> "argued the case for TE/EC in the scientific community".
I will what I can find, within the limits of library facilities to hand. But you
miss my point. Why should Berry, or Prance, or indeed any other TE/EC argue for
specifically TE in their scientific publications on ecology of rain forest ecology
or island mammal populations? These are scientific issues, not theological ones.
TE/EC is a theolgical position. Their religious position is well known to their
colleagues and , certainly in the case for Berry, they have publicly presented it.
What more do you want them to do? Say in the abstract of every paper "I am a
theist"? You you think there is a uniquely "theistic" science, as opposed to
"islamic" science, or "feminist" science, for example?
> If the latter is indeed the case, then Jonathan will have confirmed: 1)
> Johnson's point above that "...Most theistic evolutionists do not
> challenge either the conclusions of evolutionary biology or its
> naturalistic methodology, but argue merely that evolution by natural
> processes is compatible with theistic religion " and that there is no "
> scientific topic" for TE/EC "to talk about" with mainstream science";
> and 2) my point that TE/EC is marginalised in mainstream science.
>
What does Johnson want TE/EC folk to do? Do science by collecting data that
requires modification to ideas in genetics of palaeontology? They are doing that!
Criticising the mis-use of evolutionary biology to support accidentalism, communism,
capitalism, racism? They are doing that What else does he want them to do?
With respect to your second point I will see what I can hunt up.
> [continued]
>
> Steve
>
At the front of this third email Steve said, wisely, that he was going to refrain
from commenting on my replies until he had completed his three part response.
Having read through the three parts of his response, and before he answers the
questions I raised at the end of the initial response, I will try and summarise
where I think we are at in our dialogue.
The dialogue has evolved (whoops) into three distinct conversations. The first is
the original one on whether TE/EC is marginalised amongst theologians and
scientists. The second has been over the difference between theistic and deistic
evolution. The third is should there be a distinct scientific character to
"theistic evolution".
1) With respect to the first, perhaps Steve and I have been talking past each
other. When I read that TE/EC is marginalised among theologians and scientists, I
have taken it at face value. That those theological and metaphysical positions that
see God working through organic evolution, and those who hold them, are on the
margin and marginalised (as it excluded) of the professional scientific and
theological communities. As yet you has not provided any evidence for this. Papers
arguing TE/EC positions are published in both general theological journals and
specialist ones that deal with science and faith.
Another distinct is between the position of TE/EC and those who hold it. I don't
expect non-Christians to hold to this position, because it is a theological
position. It would be like expecting a non-Christian to accept the authority of
Scripture, or the Resurrection. In so far as Christians are a minority in science
(and the community at large) then TE/EC will be a minority position, as will those
who hold. However, you have not presented any evidence that people who hold EC/TE
are professionally marginalised by their non-believing colleagues .
Steve, you appear to see marginalisation as referring to popular theology or popular
Christianity. Here we agree, TE/EC is a minority position in many places.,
especially in the US, and it may be that those who hold have been marginalised.
However what goes on in popular Christianity and popular science is quite different
to what does on among professional theologians and scientists.
2) I personally have found the discussion with you Steve on the differences between
theism and deism quite helpful, so I thank you. As I see it, the distinct between
theism and deism is still that a theist would say that God COULD work through
something like organic evolution, whereas a deist says that God MUST do so. A
theist would be say that the degree to which God has actually worked by such a
process is one which is revealed by research, not something which can be stated
before hand. I regard a Christian deist as an oxymoron. A person claiming such a
position is more likely to be a semi deist than a deist.
3) Steve, you argue that there must be a unique scientific character to theistic
evolution. I confess I am puzzled by what you mean by this. Are you saying that a
theist's hypothesis for explaining a phenomenon in the world must have unique
scientific characteristics? Why? Should there be a unique scientific character to
theistic sedimentation or theistic quantum mechanics? Or is theistic quantum
mechanics simply a theists understanding of quantum mechanics? Or does this
destination apply only to evolution? If so, why? Should there be a unique
fingerprint to science by atheists, Muslims, feminists?
God Bless
Jonathan