Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

1) No, the definition of "Darwinism" and "Evolutionism" is not "addressing the origin of life on earth." Darwinism is - if indeed the term means anything & can be stated briefly - the idea that evolution can be explained in terms of natural selection, & Evolutionism is the idea that evolution can be made into a total metaphysics. OTOH there is no incompatibility at all between Christian belief in creation and the idea that the origin of life (or chemical evolution) can be explained scientifically. A number of the church fathers understood Genesis 1 to be speaking of a mediated creation of living things from the materials of the world. Ernest Messenger's Evolution and Theology (a book which is unfortunately very hard to find) deals with this in detail.

2) You are right that there is plenty of confusion among "creationists" about the actual theological implications of biological evolution. The writings of people like Wells function precisely to maintain that confusion, which is why they are so reprehensible.

3) It is rather odd for people who think that ideas about creation are central to their Christian faith to not want to take the time to look into evolutionary theory & the work of theologians who have dealt with it in a positive way. The latter category of course includes plenty of professing Christians. Unfortunately most "creationists" restrict their reading to those who share their ignorance.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Janice Matchett
  To: George Murphy ; Pattle Pun ; American Scientific Affiliation ; Keith Miller
  Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

  At 08:24 PM 1/29/2007, George Murphy wrote:

    & endorses a variety of creationism - the religious position that states that belief in God is incompatible with acceptance of evolution. Evolutionism & creationism agree in their primary implication & both are wrong.

  @@ But I would say that over 90% of "creationists" don't understand that there are various theories of evolution and are actually thinking that the "science of evolution" is addressing "the origin of life on earth" ---- the same as the definition of Darwinism and Evolutionism.

  They see atheists in the forefront promoting "evolution" so it is a logical conclusion for busy people who don't want to take the time to look more deeply into things to think that the evolutionary theory that is being pushed is incompatible with belief in God . They prefer to put their trust in what professing Christians say about it because they "know" that they can't trust the opinions of atheists / secular humanists / secular progressives when it comes to the matter of "origins".

  ~ Janice

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Janice Matchett

      To: Pattle Pun ; American Scientific Affiliation ; Keith Miller

      Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:53 PM

      Subject: Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

      At 06:12 PM 1/29/2007, Pattle Pun wrote:

        ** Reply Requested When Convenient **

        I agree with Jon Wells comments.

      @ Wells is talking about Darwinism, and that is Evolutionism---the philosophical position that states evolutionary theory is incompatible with belief in God

      http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Youth%20Page/FishWars3.html

      ~ Janice ... Pope John Paul: "There are several theories of evolution..."

>>> Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> 1/29/2007 2:31 PM >>>

        Below is an essay by Jonathan Wells on Evolution Sunday. I post

        without comment.

        Keith

        __________________________________

        http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19634

        As Jonathan Dudley pointed out in his recent column ("Evolution

        Sunday not so benign," 1/24), hundreds of Christian churches across

        America will celebrate Darwin's theory on Feb. 11.

        Why will they do this? A little background is helpful here.

        Evolution can mean many things. Broadly speaking, it means simply

        change over time, something no sane person doubts. In biblical

        interpretation, it can mean that God created the world over a long

        period of time rather than in six 24-hour days. In biology, it can

        mean minor changes within existing species, which we see happening

        before our eyes.

        But Darwin's theory claims much more * namely, that all living things

        are descended from a common ancestor and that their present

        differences are due to unguided natural processes such as random

        variations and survival of the fittest. It is not evolution in

        general, but Darwin's particular theory (Darwinism) that Evolution

        Sunday celebrates. That's why it is timed to coincide with Charles

        Darwin's birthday.

        The idea originated with University of Wisconsin evolutionary

        biologist Michael Zimmerman after a Wisconsin school board adopted

        the following policy in 2004: "Students are expected to analyze,

        review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses

        and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific

        evidence and information. Students shall be able to explain the

        scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This

        policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent

        Design."

        Zimmerman called the policy a decision "to deliberately embrace

        scientific ignorance."

        But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis

        that variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and

        selection (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and

        body plans. And what may have once looked like solid evidence for

        universal common ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular

        comparisons) is now plagued by growing inconsistencies. It is

        actually the Darwinists who brush aside these awkward facts who

        "embrace scientific ignorance."

        Not only did Zimmerman oppose analyzing Darwinism's strengths and

        weaknesses, but he also appealed to Christian churches for help. Why?

        Polls have consistently shown that about 40 percent of Americans

        believe God created the human beings in their present form a few

        thousand years ago, while another 45 percent believe that humans

        developed over millions of years from less advanced forms but that

        God guided the process. Despite their differences, both of these

        groups accept a central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings

        were designed and created in the image of God.

        Darwinism denies this.

        Darwin himself wrote that he could see "no more design in the

        variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural

        selection, than in the course which the winds blow." Although he

        could not "look at the universe as the result of blind chance,"

        Darwin saw "no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of

        any kind, in the details." Thus, asserts Darwinist George Gaylord

        Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that

        did not have him in mind. He was not planned."

        Less than 15 percent of Americans accept this view. Yet Darwinists

        depend heavily on American taxpayers for their financial support.

        Enlisting Christian clergy to defend "science" or "evolution" is a

        tactic used to perpetuate that support.

        For example, Eugenie Scott directs a militantly pro-Darwin

        organization euphemistically named the National Center for Science

        Education. As an acknowledged humanist, Scott rejects the Christian

        worldview, yet she wrote in 2002: "I have found that the most

        effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One

        clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school

        board meeting any day!"

        To reach skeptics of Darwinism, Scott recommends sugarcoating

        evolution as change over time. Only after she gets people nodding in

        agreement to the obvious fact that "the present is different from the

        past" does Scott introduce them to "The Big Idea" * namely, Darwin's

        theory. Organizers of Evolution Sunday use the same bait-and-switch.

        The vast majority of Americans reject Darwinism for good reasons: It

        doesn't fit the scientific evidence, and it contradicts a central

        tenet of Christianity. Instead of using Evolution Sunday to celebrate

        Darwin, churches should use the day to reaffirm the creatorship of

        God and the value of good science * which includes studying the

        strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

        Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in religious studies from Yale and a

        doctorate in molecular and cell biology from the University of

        California, Berkeley. He is the author of "The Politically Incorrect

        Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design."

        ______________________________________

        To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

        "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

        To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

        "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 29 22:16:08 2007