> In a message dated 3/28/01 9:00:11 AM, email@example.com writes:
> << Certainly, but my point wasn't that statements such as those of Simpson
> should be ignored.
> It is relevant to cite such statements as evidence of the way some scientists
> philosophers have tried to use evolution to further their own anti-religious
> agenda. But it's quite another matter to cite Simpson, Huxley, Dawkins, &c
> as if
> their statements carried some theological weight. >>
> The fact that statements by Simpson and others of like ilk don't carry any
> theological weight is beside the point. The point is that they carry
> sociological and cultural weight, if you will. The intellectual opinion
> leaders of Western society have largely been won over to the anti-religious
> agenda of "some scientists & philosophers" , especially in academia, partly
> as a result of statements made by Simpson, et. al. Do you not agree that
> evolution has become the creation myth of modern society, as Michael Denton
> called it? Is it not the linch-pin of metaphysical naturalism?
> As I see it, you, and perhaps others in the theistic evolutionary camp, fail
> to acknowledge and come to grips with some of the baneful side effects
> Darwinian evolution has had on Western culture, from the historic
> Judeo-Christian perspective, and prefer to view evolution idealistically, as
> a purely scientific theory, as if it has no cultural impact. I would like
> to read more of what you think in that regard.
Whether or not something is "beside the point" depends on what the point is!
What I have said is that statements of Simpson _et al_ should not be cited in
theological discussions of the value of "theistic evolution." Citing them as
examples of the way in which evolution has been used by opponents of Christianity
is certainly relevant. But to accept the statements as valid inferences from
scientific observations and theories about evolution, and thus conclude that
evolution must be rejected because it's fundamentally incompatible with
Christianity is simply wrong. Most Christians who accept such arguments have
made no serious attempt to find out what "theistic evolution" might mean & in
fact often display just plain incompetence in their attempts to discuss theology.
For centuries some people have drawn anti-Christian conclusions from all
sorts of scientific developments - heliocentrism, Newtonian mechanics, the germ
theory of disease, &c, quantum theory, &c. Are we therefore to reject "theistic
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 30 2001 - 10:05:56 EST