>>> Denyse O'Leary <oleary@sympatico.ca> 03/10/04 12:07PM >>> writes:
In my opinion, Christian evolutionists ought to
have been sponsoring the critical thinking
exercises, not just going along with everything
that the atheistic Darwinists say.
For example, here is what atheist/agnostic
philosopher Michael Ruse has said in his review
of Dawkins's A Devil's Chaplain:
"I worry about the political consequences of
Dawkins's message. If Darwinism is a major
contributor to nonbelief, then should Darwinism
be taught in publicly funded U.S. schools?"
(From "Through a glass, darkly," a review of A
Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies,
Science, and Love (New York: Houghton Mifflin,
2003), American Scientist (November-December,
2003),
www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/28365.)
Pardon me, but if you didn't react to the same
situation that Ruse has, why am I supposed to
take you seriously? You claim to be Christians
-- and I don't doubt it -- but I am amazed that
this doesn't concern you as much as concerns
even him.
He also says,
Evolution after Darwin had set itself up to be
something more than science. It was a popular
science, the science of the marketplace and the
museum, and it was a religion--whether this be
purely secular or blended in with a form of
liberal Christianity . . . When believers in
other religions turned around and scratched, you
may regret the action but you can understand
it--and your sympathy for the victim is
attenuated. (Michael Ruse, The Evolution Wars
(Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000), p. 114.)
Instead of blaming Discovery Institute for
rushing into the vacuum, ask yourselves why YOU
didn't think of doing so.
Ted replies:
Well, Denyse, we have responded to this. One of the main themes of the
ASA, consistently pursued for decades, has been exactly this theme. ASAers
have *not* typically tried to combine what Ruse calls "a form of liberal
Christianity" with evolution. Rather, many of us have sought to advance
*orthodox* Christian theism and modern science together. Now, people like
Phil think we can't do this in practice, without abandoning either genuine
"Darwinism" as he defines it or orthodox Christianity as he understands it.
And many people agree with Phil about this. But the ASA can't fairly be
accused of doing what Ruse is talking about.
In fact, the type of "science masquerading as religion," what philospher
Jerome Ravetz has called "folk science," has been the target of plenty of
ASA rhetoric. A lovely example would be Howard Van Till's early book,
"Science Held Hostage," which I recommend to all on this list. Howard's
beliefs concerning Christianity have changed substantially in recent years,
as Howard has told us, but this early book does all kinds of things I would
fully agree with--the kinds of things that Denyse is saying we haven't
done.
How long a list could I make, of ASA authors who have done similar things?
Richard Bube (former editor of PSCF), Dave Young, and the more than one
dozen ASAers who contributed to Keith Miller's book, Perspectives on an
Evolving Creation would be among them. The fact that we are much less
highly visible than ID authors, the fact that TDI is much more visible than
the ASA, is probably a function of three things. (1) TDI has bucketloads of
money, they spend annually what the ASA has spent in more than a decade; (2)
their position is more popular with ordinary (i.e., non-scientifically
trained) Christians, b/c ordinary Christians don't understand science very
well and don't know that lots of seriously Christian scientists think
evolution is true; and (3) they judiciously avoid trying to tackle the hard
theological questions that automatically come with engaging issues as ASAers
typically do, which means they don't alienate some ordinary Christians who
haven't thought very deeply about these things.
There is nothing (please read that word again) new in Ruse's position. He
didn't used to say these kinds of things, when many of us were saying them.
In recent years, however, he's been converted (probably by dialogue with
lots of people who know more about rel/sci than he did) to seeing this
point. Now that someone of Ruse's stature is saying what we've been saying
for a long time, however, more people are paying attention. And, it's a
heck of a lot easier for Ruse to get published by leading firms, than for
many of us to get published--his stature as a top secular philosopher
automatically opens more doors. But, we were there long before him.
Now I agree that the kinds of things he's saying have not been hot topics
on this list, but this list is not a very good representation of what ASA
people actually think. It represents just a few ASAers, plus many other
people; and it doesn't often represent the kind of careful thinking that
goes into writing a good book or essay for a good book. The internet has
not helped the ASA much, as yet, b/c it has tended to cause people to
overlook much more serious literature, a lot of which ASAers have written.
Having said all of this, let's try to focus on what separates Phil and many
of his friends from many of us in the ASA. (I realize in saying this, that
quite a few ID people are in the ASA, please contextualize my statement.)
The issue that separates us, is whether working scientists need the concept
of transcendental design in order to provide adequate scientific
explanations for things in nature. Those of us who are not fully persuaded
by ID, believe that this is a metaphysical issue; as Christians, we affirm
purpose in the universe and many of us believe there actually *is* evidence
for purpose that science finds. However, we recognize the enormity of
dealing with this question, we see other metaphysical questions (the problem
of evil, for example, or the understanding of "soul", even the nature of
nature) impinging on the conversation. So, we call this a metaphysical
issue rather than a scientific one. Our friends on the other side call it
scientific instead. I call it a difference of opinion.
I've met literally hundreds of working scientists who are traditional
Christians, who believe pretty much what Denyse believes about God, Christ,
salvation, and eternity. Nearly all of those folks, however, do not see a
need for design hypotheses in their scientific work. They don't see how it
would matter to what they do, how it would alter the ways in which they
explain natural phenomena. ID folks are bothered by this, they think that
these scientists *ought* to contest materialism by doing science differently
than atheistic scientists--or at least, by doing tiny little bit of science
differently than atheistic scientists. Those who are not convinced by ID,
however, are often among the most outspoken advocates for Christian
discipleship in their own congregations. They believe we ought to *live*
differently from atheistic scientists, but do not see how this directly
affects their theory formation and seleciton.
So, what's the real problem here? Have the non-ID folks just been
brainwashed, so they can't see the issue properly? Or, have they learned to
bury their faith so that their careers can be advanced (the open or implied
statements about this one on the part of ID people are common)? (try
telling this to Francis Collins, whose faith is not exactly buried under a
bushel) Or, is it really just a difference of opinion, concerning what
constitutes science and what constitutes metaphysics and religious belief?
Or, does it reflect different understandings of Christian vocation in
science--a confrontational, in-your-face type of theistic message vs a
quieter, but openly presented, manner of living and doing? (this particular
contrast has only recently dawned on me, but I do think it is real and
relevant to this issue)
My apologies to Denyse and the list, for going on like this at such length.
She hit a hot button, however.
ted
Received on Wed Mar 10 13:22:43 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 10 2004 - 13:22:43 EST