On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:36:25 +1000, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
[continued]
[...]
>>JC>In the 19th century we have scientists
>SJ>It is common for TEs to claim support from some 19th century
>>theologians and Christian scientist who accepted evolution. But there is
>>a basic flaw in this, in that "evolution" in the 19th and early 20th
>>centuries (before the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis), meant
>>something different from what it does today:
JC>What is your point here? Of course "evolution" meant something
>different in the early 19th and 20th century. So did just about every
>science you could mention. That is not the issue.
My "point" is that if "`evolution'" meant something different in the early
19th" century from what it does in the "20th century" then it is
*misleading* for 20th century TE/ECs to "claim support (without
qualification), from 19th century theologians and Christian scientist who
accepted evolution." The "evolution" that " theologians and Christian
scientist" accepted in the 19th century is not the same "evolution" that
goes by that same name in the 20th century.
Many, if not most of those claimed "theistic evolutionists" would be what
is known as "progressive creationists" today. The very term "progressive
creation" appears to have been coined by Charles Hodge in 1897 to
distinguish those creationists like him who accepted that God could work
through natural processes over a long period of time. For TEs to claim that
a 19th century theologian or Christian scientists who accepted "evolution"
is today what is known as a "theistic evolution" is misleading, to say the
least.
JC>What TEs are merely trying to say that there were serious
>and generally successful attempts to explore and perhaps integrate
>theology and evolutionary biology.
The difference was that then they were arguing a *distinctively* Christian
theistic scientific position on "evolution" over against the non-theistic
evolutionists of their day. The modern day TE/ECs don't do that. Only the
YECs, PCs and ID movement) have a distinctive Christian theistic
scientific position on "evolution" today.
JC>There were as many different angles on this as people who tried.
>People who continue to do so today are their intellectual descendants
>and inheritors, even if they way they go about it and even the issues are
>changed since then.
Disagree. Most modern day TE/ECs do not carry on their intellectual
inheritance of trying to make a *distinctive* Christian theistic scientific
position on "evolution" over against the non-theistic evolutionists of their
day. Their *real* "intellectual descendants and inheritors" are the YECs,
PCs and Iders of today.
Having said that, I would probably concede there may be a few TEs (and
even DEs) who may be trying to make a *distinctive* Christian theistic
scientific position on "evolution" over against the non- theistic
evolutionists of today, but they are the rare exception.s Most TE/ECs that
I am aware of have thoroughly sold out to Naturalism, contribute little or
nothing to theistic to evolution and spend most of their time attacking
their more overtly creationist Christian brothers!
>SJ>"At the turn of the century it was relatively easy to be a Darwinist
>>and also a theist, because "evolution" allowed room for God to act in
>>nature, for example by providing the needed variation. Provine reckons
>>that the majority of evolutionists at that time were theists who thought
>>of evolution as divinely guided or inherently progressive. With the
>>coming of the synthesis, biological evolution became wedded to
>>physicalist theories of nature which absolutely barred consideration of
>>purposeful forces in evolution. NeoDarwinists found no need or place
>>for purposeful forces in their theory and hence concluded that
>>evolution is unguided and purposeless." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the
>>Balance", 1995, p235).
JC>Since when has Provine become such an authority on the history and
>philosophy of science-theology interaction
Provine is a leading Neo-Darwinist and a historian of the movement as
the following titles of his books show:
* Provine W.B., "Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology", University of
Chicago Press, 1986.
* Mayr E. & Provine W.B., eds, "The Evolutionary Synthesis : Perspectives
on the Unification of Biology", Harvard University Press, 1982.
* Provine W.B., "The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics", 1971.
JC>that Johnson relies on him and ignores people such as Moore (who
>wrote "The post-darwinian controversies") or Livingstone who paint a
>very different picture?
Johnson does not "ignore...people such as Moore...or Livingstone". He
mentions Livingtone in "Darwin on Trial" (p205).
But Provine is a *leading* Neo-Darwinist* as well as a *historian of
NeoDarwinism*, so he is in a unique position to say what modern day
NeoDarwinism believes about the "need or place for purposeful forces in
their theory."
Moreover, Johnson is a *personal friend* of Provine and they have debated
publicly (see http://www.arn.org/orpages/or161.htm). Johnson has debated
leading modern day Darwinists like Gould, Futuyma, Ruse, and Eldredge,
so he is in a far better position than armchair historians to know first-hand
what modern day Darwinists *really* think about the relationship between
Christianity and evolution.
If TE/ECs ignore that unpleasant reality, they are deceiving themselves and
the wider Christian world they are trying to convince that there is no
problem reconciling Christianity and modern day Neo-Darwinism.
>SJ>Also, most, if not all of the above had important reservations about
>>Darwin's theory, and some allowed for supernatural intervention.
>>IMHO some (if not most), of the above would be Mediate of
>>Progressive Creationists today.
>>JC>such as Asa Gray
>SJ>Gray never fully accepted Darwin's theory and in particular did not
>>accept that variation (ie. mutation) was undirected:
>>
>>"Darwin's chief American supporter, Asa Gray, was deeply concerned
>>with the problem of reconciling selection and design and eventually
>>qualified his support by accepting supernatural control of variation."
(Bowler P.J., "The Eclipse of Darwinism", 1983, p28).
>>
>>If Gray was alive today, IMHO he would be a Mediate or
>>Progressive Creationist, not a TE/EC.
JC>Spoken to him recently have you (grin)? Seriously, we must be very
>careful in saying that deceased people, were they alive to day, would
>have opinions congruent with what we would like them to have.
Agreed. That's why I put an "IMHO" before what I said.
But, having said that, what is Jonathan doing citing 19th century
scientists and theologians who are all "deceased people" as TE/ECs in the
20th century sense, if he is not claiming they "have opinions congruent
with what" *he* "would like them to have"?
It is not a question of them having "opinions congruent with what we
would like them to have" but rather a question of the *best fit* of their
19th century views with modern-day positions on the Creation -
Evolution spectrum. No modern day TE/ECs AFAIK accept "supernatural
control of variation" like Asa Gray did, but MC would, and possibly PC
would also.
On that basis Gray would be a MC or PC today. If Jonathan claims that
TE/EC could accept " supernatural control of variation" I would be glad
to hear it!
>>JC>and James Dana
>SJ>Dana had reservations about the power of natural selection and
>>believed in saltations. IMHO today he would be called a Progressive
>>Creationist:
>>
>>"... Dana held to a catastrophist position in biology, arguing that in
>>the years from the initial creation of life, various species had been
>>destroyed by catastrophes and replaced by divine creation. His model
>>of the history of life was progressivist not in the sense that it presumed
>>one species progressing into another but rather perceived each new
>>creation being higher than its predecessor in the chain of life.... By
>>1883, Dana had clearly accepted the Darwinian cornerstone of
>>evolution-namely, natural selection...though he stopped short of
>>accepting the contention that it was the sole mover of evolutionary
>>history...Dana also remained disconcerted by the imperfect state of the
>>geological record. The signal absence of paleontological support led
>>him, like many others, to the idea of saltatory evolution-that is,
>>evolution that occurred discontinuously, involving sudden
>>transformations of species rather than gradual incremental changes. On
>>the question of human evolution, Dana sided with Wallace: he was
>>prepared to concede the derivation of the human race from an inferior
>>species, but he insisted that it originated in a special introduction of
>>divine creative energy." (Livingstone D.N., "Darwin's Forgotten
>>Defenders, 1987, pp73-75).
No response from Jonathan regarding "James Dana" as a TE/EC?
>>JC>and theologians like James Orr,
>SJ>While Orr accepted `evolution', he did not necessarily accept it in the
>>sense that the word means today, ie. Darwinism:
>>
>>"Orr was repeatedly at pains to point out that the theory of evolution
>>ought not to be equated with its specifically Darwinian
>>formulation...writing during a period when Darwinism was in eclipse,
>>Orr exploited to the full the rival evolutionary alternatives arising in
>>many quarters." (Livingstone D.N., 1987, pp140-141)
>>
>SJ>Orr postulated "an entirely supernatural origin" for Adam's body
>>as well as his mind and soul:
>>
>>"... Orr devoted quite a lot of space to establishing the discontinuity
>>between human and animal life in both physical and mental terms...he
>>demonstrated to his own satisfaction the "enormous distance that
>>separates man from the highest animals, alike in a bodily and in a
>>mental state...For him, the ideas of mind, soul, and the image of God
>>were so closely bound together as to be almost conflated. He obviously
>>felt the need to postulate an entirely supernatural origin for them...And
>>since the mind and brain were so intimately related, he had to push on
>>toward an entirely supernatural creation of the first human being in
>>toto." (Livingstone D.N., 1987, p142).
>>
>>In fact Orr regarded the "opposition to the supernatural" and the
>>"refusal to recognise anything in nature, life, or history, outside the
>>lines of natural development" as having "no kindredship" with
"Christianity":
>>
>>"It need not further be denied that between this view of the world
>>involved in Christianity, and what is sometimes termed " the modern
>>view of the world," there exists a deep and radical antagonism... This
>>common feature is their thoroughgoing opposition to the supernatural,-
>>at least of the specifically miraculous,-their refusal to recognise
>>anything in nature, life, or history, outside the lines of natural
>>development. Between such a view of the world and Christianity, it is
>>perfectly correct to say that there can be no kindredship." (Orr J., "The
>>Christian View of God and the World", 1989, reprint, p9)
>>
>>Therefore, I believe that today Orr would be regarded as either a
>>Progressive or Mediate Creationist.
Again, no response from Jonathan regarding "James Orr" as a TE/EC?
These are *his* chosen examples of 19th century TE/EC scientists and
theologians and I would expect him either to accept that they weren't
TE/ECs or quote some counter-evidence to support his position that they
were.
>>JC>B.B. Warfield
>SJ>Warfield likewise, while he did believe in `evolution' did not believe
>>that Darwinism, and maintained that supernatural intervention could
>>not be ruled out:
>>
>>"Warfield's endorsement of Darwin was not unqualified, however. He
>>held that any scientific theory that in principle subverted providence or
>>occasional supernatural interference must ultimately prove
>>unacceptable...Warfield ...expressed his annoyance at Darwin's
>>absolutist claims for his natural selection mechanism." (Livingstone
>>D.N., 1987, pp115-116).
>>
>>Warfield, in his later years, did not believe that evolution was adequate
to >>account for all the facts:
>>
>>"Evolution, he [Warfield] said, had helped unravel some exceptionally
>>difficult problems, but that surely did not mean that it could account
>>for all facts...." (Livingstone D.N., 1987, pp146- 147).
>>
>>Warfield's friend and biographer, Samuel Craig, said that he "`outgrew'
>>Darwinism":
>>
>>"That Dr. McCosh did not succeed in making him a Darwinian...he
>>was already a "Darwinian of the purest water" before coming under
>>McCosh's influence-a position which he later repudiated...Though
>>Warfield early "outgrew" Darwinism, as he put it...He never denied
>>that evolution is a method that God has employed in bringing the world
>>to its present stage of development, but he did deny with emphasis that
>>it is the only method He has employed. Its fatal weakness as an all-
>>sufficient explanation, he maintained, is its inability to account not
>>only for the origin of things but for the appearance of anything
>>specifically new ... To account for the specifically new we need, he
>>ever alleged, an act of God analogous to what we know as
>>miracle...He did not ignore the basic difference between creation and
>>evolution. Since creation is origination and evolution modification it
>>will remain forever true, he insisted, that what is created is not evolved
>>and what is evolved is not created." (Craig S.G. (ed.), "Benjamin B.
>>Warfield," in Warfield B.B., "Biblical and Theological Studies," 1968,
>>p.xii)
And again, no response from Jonathan regarding another one of his chosen
examples of a 19 th century TE/EC, namely " B.B. Warfield "?
>>JC>and James McCosh
>SJ>While McCosh was undoubtedly the most pro-evolutionary
>>theologian of those listed, even he did not fully accept Darwinism:
>>
>>"McCosh cited the anthropological evidence ... to establish a wide
>>gulf between animal and human intellectual capacity. At the same
>>time, he left the matter of the formation of the human body-as
>>opposed to the soul-an open question. And he dismissed the monistic
>>claims of some natural selectionists on the grounds that there were
>>unbridgeable gaps in the natural order, notably between the organic
>>and inorganic, the conscious and unconscious, plant life and animal
>>life." (Livingstone D.N., 1987, p108).
And here too no response from Jonathan regarding "James McCosh "?
>>JC>as well as activists like Charles Kingsley
>SJ>Kingsley is probably the only *real* TE in the list. But he was also
>>the least scientific and theological, being a clergyman writer of
>>historical novels:
>>
>>"Kingsley, Charles (b. June 12, 1819, Holne Vicarage, Devon-d. Jan.
>>23, 1875, Eversley, Hampshire), Anglican clergyman, teacher and
>>writer ... He was one of the first churchmen to support Charles
>>Darwin's theories and to seek a reconciliation between modern
>>science and Christian doctrine." ("Kingsley, Charles", Encyclopaedia
>>Britannica, 1984, Vol. v, p821)
Even here no response by Jonathan!
>>JC>who would today would be called TE/EC.
>SJ>Disagree, except for Kingsley. And maybe if Kingsley was alive
>>today and saw the results of Darwinism, he wouldn't be a TE/EC either!
JC>Again, you are speaking for the dead.
I have quoted *evidence* to support my "speaking for the dead"", ie. that
they were no TE/ECs. Jonathan has to date produced *no* evidence to
support *his* "speaking for the dead", ie. that they were TE/ECs!
JC>However I note that you have quoted extensively from Livingstone's
>book. In doing so you should note what the book actually says overall.
>Livingstone writes on page xii of his preface that his aim is "....to show
>that a substantial number of the most distinguished members of
>evangelical orthodoxy found the theological resources to adsorb the
>latest scientific findings". He think he demonstrates this quite well. You
>are of course welcome to disagree.
Why should I want to "disagree"? I don't equate "theological resources to
adsorb the latest scientific findings" with TE/EC. But it is interesting that
Jonathan apparently does, even though he produces no evidence that these
men were TE/ECs and fails to respond to my evidence that these men
were not what today would be called TE/ECs.
Indeed, my quotes from Livingstone about Jonathan's chosen examples of
alleged 19th century TE/ECs, such as: "Asa Gray", " James Dana",
"James Orr", " B.B. Warfield", and " James McCosh" show that it was
*not* TE/EC that enabled these "most distinguished members of
evangelical orthodoxy" to find "the theological resources to adsorb the
latest scientific findings" but rather what we would today call Mediate or
Progressive Creationism.
>>JC>We may disagree with the people if we wish, but we can hardly
>>>dismiss them as marginalised in science or theology, either now or in
>>>the past. If these folk are marginalised, then we need more
>>>marginalised people like them.
>SJ>I did not say that "these folk are marginalised". Even if it be granted
>>that they were all TE/ECs (which IMHO they weren't), they all lived in
>>the *19th century*. I said that "TE/EC *is* marginalised", ie. *today*.
JC>I agree that TE/EC is a minority view among both scientists and
>Christians, probably because a minority of scientists are Christians and a
>minority of Christians are scientists. This is not the same thing as saying
>that it is marginalised. You have shown no evidence for that I fear.
"Marginalised" does not necessarily mean "a minority view". The opinion
polls consistently show that those who believe that evolution was
undirected are less than 10% of the population, yet theirs is the dominant
view in science, law and government. To be marginalised means to be
"relegate(d) to a marginal position within a society or group" (Merriam-
Webster Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary).
And "marginal" is defined by the same dictionary as: "2 a : of, relating to,
or situated at a margin or border b : not of central importance <regards
violence as a marginal rather than a central problem> c (1) : occupying
the borderland of a relatively stable territorial or cultural area <marginal
tribes> (2) : characterized by the incorporation of habits and values from
two divergent cultures and by incomplete assimilation in either <the
marginal cultural habits of new immigrant groups> (3) : excluded from or
existing outside the mainstream of society, a group, or a school of thought
<marginal voters>.
TE/EC is marginalised, not so much because it is "a minority view", but
more because it is "not of central importance" and "existing outside the
mainstream of...a school of thought". TE/EC marginalised in both science
and Christianity because it "not of central importance" , and exists
"outside the mainstream of" both science and Christianity.
>SJ>And with the rise of the ID movement, as an alternative to YEC,
>>IMHO TE/EC is going to be even more marginalised than it already is!
JC>What basis do you have for such triumphalism?
It is not "triumphalism". It is a sober *prediction* based on current
trends. ID books like Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" and "Darwin's Black
Box" are selling like hotcakes. "Darwin on Trial" has even been
translated into several languages, including French and Chinese.
The book by Ashton, "In Six Days" is supposed to be a book about why
50 scientists believe in a young Earth, when in fact it is full of arguments
from ID literature, particularly "Darwin's Black Box". This shows that ID
has already penetrated deeply into the YEC movement.
TE/EC is going nowhere. Its books are not making any impact on either
science or Christianity. At least the ID movement is being attacked by
leading scientific materialists (witness savage reviews by Gould of
"Darwin on Trial" and also by many others, and also of "Darwin's Black
Box". The latest is Pennock's book Tower of Babel which is reviewed by
Eugenie Scott in Scientific American (which I plan to comment on shortly).
JC>While the ID movement has some good ideas I suspect that they
>looking for design at the wrong level. So far they have come up with
>little more than Paley.
So what does Jonathan think Dembski's "explanatory filter" ground-
breaking arguments in "The Design Inference", that were even published
by Cambridge University Press, are - chopped liver?
And has TE/EC anything better to offer?
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of
chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the
immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its
solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in
the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines
of thinking and experimentation must be tried." (Dose K., "The Origin of
Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,
Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p348)
--------------------------------------------------------------------