Bob Dehaaan wrote:
>>
> Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I meant to ask why TEs (for want of a
> better term) do not criticize evolutionary biologists as vociferously as they
> criticized IDers and
> YECs. I'm not including scientific naturalists.
Bob's comments point out an interesting symmetry here between non-ID
Christians and ID Christians. Both, in a very real sense feel that
the other gives "comfort to the opponents of Christianity," We will
probably continue to talk past each other because these differing ways
of looking at the discussiong are founded on fundamentally different
views of the intellectual landscape. But possibly understanding the
source of the differences may make communication more constructive.
There are two parts to the "evolution implies atheism argument" of
people such as Richard Dawkins.
1. Does evolution (if true) imply Christianity is false?
2. Do the facts support evolution.
Bob, and others associated with ID take their stand on proposition 2,
and consequently feel that we non-IDers give comfort to the
naturalists because we do not attack metaphysical naturalist's claims
that the facts support evolution (notice that he stated that we do not
criticize evolutionary biologists). He is apparently not comforted by
nuanced critiques that distinguish naturlalist's
philosophical/religious commitments from their science.
I and others, feel that the real issue is proposition 2. If prop. 1 is
false, the answer to 2 is irrelevant. We therefore we see that Phillip
Johnson, William Dembski and others give unwarranted support to
naturalists when they implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) affirm
proposition 1. I Among other things, depite occasional statements to
the contrary, I find that Johnson and Dembski's writings accept the
naturalistic assumptions 1) that the only reliable means to determine
what is true is through science, 2) that scientific discovery leaves
less room for God, as well as the big one--- 3) that Jesus is
irrelevant to determining Christianity's truth. In short Johson and
Dembski agree with virtually everything Richard Dawkins writes except
for how to interpret DNA, fossils, and genetics.
In fact, our objections to ID writings are often precisely the same
objections we have to evolutionary biologists who are asserting that
evolution implies atheism. Similarly, ID proponents often have the
same objection to us that they have to evolutionary biologists because
we either agree that the facts support evolution, and/or feel that the
question is irrelevant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 11 2001 - 15:32:26 EST