Heya Bernie,
It is fine to be moderate as long as the evidence isn't in… but when the
> evidence is in, it is a matter of being wrong when trying to be moderate.
> When the evidence comes in, it is time for taking sides. The only reason to
> stay moderate in the face of the evidence is because of fear- fear of being
> rejected by some (or much of the faithful). The evidence for evolution from
> apelike creature to man is overwhelming, in my opinion (pseudogenes and
> fused human chromosome #2). This is no time to be moderate, in my opinion,
> when one wants to be on the leading edge of apologetics- esp. to a skeptical
> and atheist audience.
>
But where did WLC oppose 'the evolution from apelike creature to man', even
in the article presented? The only place where he specifically referenced
human origins is here: "The transition from lower primates to humans is
nothing compared to what the theory postulates on the grand scale." In other
words, the bulk of the skepticism he displays here has nothing to do with
the specific issue of apelike-to-human transition.
What's more, WLC could accept the apelike-to-human transition personally -
and still have serious doubts about evolution, at least in the orthodox
sense. Denton is a great example of this that Timaeus has been talking
about. Behe as well accepts common descent and biological precursors of that
kind, and clearly Behe has (however misguided some may judge him on this
point) considerable problems with what he views as the standard evolutionary
scenario.
Further, let's get this out in the open. I do believe it's important, very
important, for skeptics, agnostics, and atheists to be reached out to by
Christians. I personally am a TE, though I keep the door open to ID
possibilities outside the realm of science, and find the larger ID movement
to be pretty encouraging in many respects. But if the desire is to make
Christianity respectable in the eyes of atheists and skeptics, guess what?
It's not going to happen. And not because Christianity or even some
skepticism about origins is necessarily irrational, but because the
respectability of Christianity is not now and has never been the central
concern.
> Yes- William Lane Craig addresses biological evolution, but it seems like
> it only when asked. Other than that, he tries to avoid or circumvent the
> discussion. I find that reprehensible for a person who wants to be on the
> cutting edge of apologetics. And he certainly claims to be in harmony with
> modern science, so there's no way for anyone to accept scientific ignorance
> on his part because he's "only a philosopher"- he doesn't claim to be "only
> a philosopher."
>
Bernie, look at what you've said here. First WLC was a coward because you
claim he never touches on the question of evolution. Now you're implying
he's a coward because he does touch on the question - but only when asked.
Sorry, this doesn't fly. Not when he's just finished up a podcast where he
discusses evolution - he didn't get blindsided at a conference and end up
discussing it because he was put on the spot. Not when he just posted an
article on his own site where he talks about the issue in broad detail, and
he's entirely free to field whatever questions he likes. Not when he defends
Christianity's compatibility with evolutionary theory, and not when the
principal author he quotes with regards to skepticism about orthodox
evolutionary theory is, of all people, Michael Denton.
You may as well argue that Francis Collins is a coward and scientifically
ignorant, on the grounds that he's not nearly active enough on this question
and due to his expressing skepticism about evolutionary explanations for
altruism.
> Anyway, if a philosopher is scientifically ignorant, their philosophy will
> be in error. Philosophy is human logic/reason based on facts, so awareness
> of all scientific facts is a foundation for philosophy.
>
This is a tremendous oversimplification of philosophy, and flat out wrong in
many instances.
Anyway, I think the reaction some are having to WLC is ludicrous. Has it
really come to the point where entertaining and encouraging some limited
skepticism about orthodox evolutionary claims - *even while asserting that
orthodox evolutionary theory poses no threat to Christianity* - is
reprehensible and cowardly? Sorry - I think this attitude is vastly more
harmful to Christian ministry and relations in general. I believe the
primary concern of TEs should be in explaining to people why TE is an
acceptable position for a Christian to hold, why TE does not rule out
design, and generally making information on evolution available. Not being
overly upset because somewhere out there may be Christians (some or many)
who hold opinions contrary to scientific orthodoxy.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 12 20:05:32 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 12 2008 - 20:05:32 EST