Reflectorites
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:37:12 -0600, Terry M. Gray wrote:
TG>Just three points in response to Stephen.
>
>It's really too bad to hear the same line I get from Phil Johnson on this.
>I.e. that I'm some poor indoctrinated slob who can't get out of my own
>little "theistic-naturalistic" world.
Neither Johnson or I am trying to belittle Terry. I have never AFAIK used
the term "indoctrinated", but I do not resile from it, now that Terry has
introduced it into the debate.
The fact is that Terry *has* had a science education and science is
dominated by materialistic-naturalists. And Terry agrees with the materialistic-
naturalists on evolution over against the majority of his Christian brothers
who have not had the `benefit' of such an education.
The Bible warns against Christians being taken "captive" by a "hollow and
deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic
principles of this world" (Col 2:8). So there is a prima-facie case that this
has indeed happened to Terry and other TE/ECs.
To support this thesis, a glance at Terry's home page reveals, not attacks on
materialist-naturalistic evolutionists, but attacks against his Christian
brothers who are IDers:
"Book Review of Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial
Book Review of Phillip Johnson's Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds
Book Review of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box"
As for the last item, I have pointed out to the List before that this article titled
"Complexity--Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--No! A Creationist
Criticism of Irreducible Complexity," is not in fact a "Book Review of
Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box," but rather an abstract of a debate that
Terry had with Mike Behe in 1994, well before "Darwin's Black Box" was
published in 1996.
That Terry apparently cannot see anything wrong with having a prominent
reference on his web page to an IDer "Book Review", which is not in fact a
book review at all, and indeed pre-dated the book it purports to review by
two years, lends support to the thesis that Terry is (using his own word),
"indoctrinated".
Moreover, Terry's attacks on Johnson and Behe are gratefully seized upon
by the atheists, not to support theistic evolution, but *atheistic* evolution, e.g.:
"...And Terry Gray, a self-described creationist at Calvin College, has
criticized Johnson's attacks on the scientific evidence for evolution. He
writes, "It is not clear to me what kind of evidence [for evolution] Johnson
would find persuasive."
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1999/march.html
"Complexity --Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--No!: A Creationist
Criticism of Irreducible Complexity [ 31K ] (Off Site) by Terry M. Gray. A
critique of Behe's claim that biochemical systems are irreducibly complex."
http://www.freethought.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html
"A Creationist Criticism of Irreducible Complexity Chemist and self-
described creationist Terry Gray critiques Behe's book from both a
scientific and theological perspective."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
In the end it is up to Terry to face up to the evidence for what Johnson and
I say, and to accept or reject it.
TG>Isn't it at least possible to
>consider that the evidence for design isn't that compelling and that's the
>reason I don't buy into the ID scheme?
That might be OK if it stopped there. But it doesn't. Terry then apparently
feels he has to justify his position by arguing that the "evidence for design
isn't that compelling" for *everyone* (including atheists), and he attacks his
fellow Christians who do think the evidence for design *is* compelling. Of
course the atheists are *very* happy to have a "creationist" arguing that
"the evidence for design isn't that compelling"!
TG>Second, I think that Stephen's "canvas as a whole" doesn't refer to what
>I'm talking about. "! I think that the ID crowd's "canvas as a whole" refers
>to order in the universe, the laws of nature, etc. and not to particular
>instantiations.
It would cover "particular instantiations" too. The "canvas" is everything
that is not "painting".
TG> My position is that even things that appear to be random
>(from our perspective and from the perspective of our science) ARE NOT from
>God's perspective. So a random mutation is only random from our perspective
>and our science would detect it as random. But it is not random, it is
>highly purposeful in God's maintenance of the universe and it accomplishes
>exactly what he wants it to accomplish. "
No IDer or creationist AFAIK denies this. In fact I have argued this very
point myself on this Reflector and it is on my testimony web page: "I would
have no problem even if Darwinian evolution was proved to be true,
because the God of the Bible is fully in control of all events, even those that
seem random to man (Prov. 16:33; 1 Kings 22:34)."
(http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/testimny.html).
TG> Personally, I think that Mike Behe
>is comfortable with this sort of divine action--he just wants to argue that
>it is detectable, i.e. that we can tell the difference between this sort of
>divinely controlled randomness and the kind of randomness that science
>talks about (as if there is a difference).
I've got news for Terry. *All* IDers and creationists are, AFAIK,
"comfortable with this sort of divine action". I certainly am. The difference
is that IDers and creationists don't limit God's working to *only* this
immanent mode like TE/ECs do.
TG>Finally, Stephen's accusation concerning my naturalism is just plain false.
>I do believe that God is free to act in an irregular manner (i.e.
>miraculously "intervene") and I believe that He has done it. Those acts are
>recorded for us in scripture in cases such as the resurrection of Christ,
>the turning of water into wine at the wedding, walking on water, the
>creation of the human soul, creation ex nihilo, etc.
I am glad to hear this but I did not say that Terry denied the Biblical
miracles. But some TE/ECs (e.g. Arthur Peacocke) do. The *tendency* is
there that once one rules out God acting supernaturally in natural history, a
consistent next step is to rule Him out acting supernaturally in Biblical history
also. This in fact has happened many times among both Christian
scientists and theologians.
TG>There is nothing in my
>worldview that prevents me from admitting to such "non-natural" occurences.
>I just don't happen to believe that scripture requires me to see such
>irregular activity as taking place elsewhere in the origin account AND I
>don't find the alleged weaknesses of a "naturalistic" origins
>compelling.
The evidence is that there *is* something in Terry's worldview that
prevents him from admitting to such "non-natural" occurrences. That is
that Terry (and other TE/ECs) spend their energies, not publicly attacking
naturalistic evolution, but his Christian brothers who believe in such
"nonnatural" occurrences".
TG>(They seem to be wishful thinking on the part of people want to argue
>against those who wrongfully conclude that atheism is a logical consequence
>of biological evolution.
No one AFAIK in the ID movement is claiming that atheism is "a logical
consequence of biological evolution". But the fact is that 100% of atheists
believe in "biological evolution", and the leading atheist Richard Dawkins
has claimed that: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled
atheist" (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, p.6). And there are
plenty of testimonies from atheists (e.g. E.O. Wilson), that they gave up
believing in God when they became convinced of "biological evolution".
Of course it is *possible* for someone like Terry to believe in both
"biological evolution" and supernatural Christianity. It is *possible* for
people (including Christians) to hold all manner of conflicting positions.
The problem is not so much that Terry manages to believe in both
"biological evolution" and supernatural Christianity, but that he publicly
attacks his fellow Christians who find the two incompatible.
TG>Now I'll be the first to admit that it is a bit of
>a mystery as to what is compelling or not compelling to different people.
>I'm sure I will be taken to task for accusing these guys of "wishful
>thinking" because they, no doubt, find the alleged weaknesses of a
>"naturalistic" origins compelling--even within a theistic framework.
There is no "mystery". A major factor is a prior philosophical position which
prevents the mind from even *seeing* that something is "compelling"
The fact that science is dominated by philosophical materialists and that there
are so many leading Christians who have are opposed to evolution, should at
least cause Terry to consider that he may have (perhaps unknowingly) been
influenced philosophically by his scientific naturalistic training.
TG>I hope
>however that psychologizing the whole debate, for both of us, is not the
>end of the story, and that rational discourse can continue.)
Here Terry overstates the case. The "whole debate" is not
"psychologizing".
And I disagree that it is not part of "rational discourse" in this debate to
consider the possible influence of training in a dominant scientific materialist
setting, may have influenced Christians who are TE/ECs.
TG>Let's do admit
>that the ID design conclusion is a negative conclusion: design is the
>conclusion we draw when the "chance and law" explanation falls
>short. that.
This is a non sequitur. It simply does not follow that what remains after
"chance and law" have been eliminated is "negative". Is archaeology and
SETI to be abandoned because what they work with after "chance and law"
have been eliminated is allegedly "negative"?
TG>I personally don't think that the "chance and law" explanation has fallen
>short
That goes without saying because Terry agrees philosophically with the
scientific naturalists that there *can't be* be any other explanation but
"chance and law" in science.
TG>and, as I explained in my previous post, "chance and law"
>explanations don't threaten the existence or work of God; indeed it is his
>decree and providence that establishes those very "chance and law"
>explanations.
Terry is implying that this is something special to his position. *No*
Christian IDer AFAIK thinks that such "`chance and law' explanations ...
threaten the existence or work of God". And *all* Christian IDers AFAIK
believe that it is God's "decree and providence that establishes those very
`chance and law' explanations."
As I said before, if Terry wants to criticise ID, he should quote what a
leading IDer has said on the topic in question, and not just make it up off
the top of his head. It just keeps telling us something about Terry, not
about ID.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nor, fourthly, would any man in his senses think the existence of the
watch, with its various machinery, accounted for, by being told that it was
one out of possible combinations of material forms; that whatever he had
found in the place where he found the watch, must have contained some
internal configuration or other; and that this configuration might be the
structure now exhibited, viz. of the works of a watch, as well as a different
structure." (Paley W., "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence
and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature,"
[1802], St. Thomas Press: Houston, TX, 1972, reprint, p.4)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 09 2000 - 18:10:50 EDT