This came to me direct but it was not marked personal and it does not
appear to be private, so I am replying via the Reflector.
On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:01:09 -0800, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
CL>Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>
>SJ>I am sure that evolutionists in general, and theistic evolutionists in
>>particular were to start using words clearly, carefully and consistently
>>(particularly the words "theistic", "evolution" and creation), then Johnson
>>would not even *need* to use the term "theistic naturalism" to describe
>>those theists who inconsistently adhere to a version of naturalism!
CL>I don't see how an evolutionist can be expected to bother about refining
>his terminology in an area he thinks has no validity at all. This sort of
>fuss is all on the creationist side, a one-sided game. Scientists don't
>even think about the labels that are applied to *them*--'materialist',
>'positivist', etc--so I don't expect evolutionists in general to ever devote
>much effort to using 'theistic' and 'creation' carefully and consistently.
Agreed! But that evolutionists don't see any validity in the criticisms by
creationists is no reason for creationists to stop the criticism if it is what
creationists think is the *truth*.
At least evolutionists might eventually realise and fairly state the creationist
criticisms against their position, even if they do not (and indeed *cannot*)
agree with them.
CL>The asymmetry of the situation is interesting. Scientists offer no critiques
>of theistic topics. A wrong idea is just that; it doesn't matter to them
>whether it arises from biblical literalism or some other source.
I don't know what planet Cliff has been on lately! :-) *Evolutionist* "scientists
offer" "critiques of theistic topics" *constantly*!
They *have* to, because if theism is true, then evolution, as a General Theory,
becomes a dubious proposition.
CL>But of course
>creationists will delve into science, looking for errors. The errors are
>there, and the criticisms are valuable, but science is ready to correct
>itself and continue on in its 'materialistic' way.
In *some* "errors" science will not necessarily "correct itself". And that is
*precisely* in its *fundamental* "error" of "its 'materialistic' way"!
CL>So what do theists stand to gain from their forays into science?
Simple. If theism is *true*, then materialism is *false*. Therefore, to the
extent that modern science is based on materialism (e.g. in providing its
motivation, conceptual framework, guiding the selection, prioritisation and
interpretation of facts, etc), modern science itself is *false*!
The operative words above are "to the extent". Many areas of science,
especially those based more strongly on repeatable experiment, are less
affected by materialist presuppositions, and so if theism is true, they are the
least false. But those areas which have to do with *origins*, and *spiritual*
realities, are most affected by materialistic presuppositions, and so if theism
is true, they are the most false.
And this is not to say that materialist science is not *useful*. The history of
science shows that even false theories have a certain amount of usefulness.
But that does not make them *true*.
Therefore what "theists stand to gain from their forays into science" is the
same as what science itself thinks is of the highest importance, namely: 1)
finding out the *truth*, ie. the way things *really* are and what *really*
happened; and 2) helping others to find that truth also.
At least that is what motivates *me*.
Happy Christmas to all!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The personal and intellectual drama of Darwin and Dana provides the
main subject for this essay, but I also write to illustrate a broader theme in
the lives of scholars and the nature of science: the integrative power of
worldviews (the positive side), and their hold as conceptual locks upon
major innovation (the negative side)." (Gould S.J., "Leonardo's Mountain
of Clams and the Diet of Worms: Essays on Natural History", [1998],
Vintage: London, 1999, reprint, p103)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------