Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 18:07:08 EDT

At 05:41 PM 8/6/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>janice matchett wrote:
>
>>At 04:56 PM 8/6/2005, Robert Schneider wrote:
>>
>>>Finally, to Janice: I have read several of Francisco Ayala's papers and
>>>heard him lecture twice. I think it is quite mistaken to lump him with
>>>Gould and others and describe his worldview as "inherently
>>>irrational." Far from it.
>>>
>>>Bob Schneider
>>
>>
>>*When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible.
>>Alvin Plantinga* University of Notre Dame
>>Notre Dame IN 46556 Christian Scholar's Review XXI:1 (September 1991):
>>8-33. Used by permission.
>>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html
>>
>>EXCERPT:
>>
>>Evolution is certain, says *Francisco J. Ayala*, as certain as "the
>>roundness of the earth, the motions of the planets, and the molecular
>>constitution of matter."14
>><http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/#14>
>><http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/#14>
>>
>>According to Stephen J. *Gould,* evolution is an established fact, not a
>>mere theory; and no sensible person who was acquainted with the evidence
>>could demur.15 <http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/#15>
>>
>>According to Richard *Dawkins*, the theory of evolution is as certainly
>>true as that the earth goes around the sun.
>You are indeed doing a disservice to Gould, Dawkins and Ayala to place
>them in the same categories as their viewpoints, while accepting the fact
>of evolution are quite different. Things are seldomly this black and white.

### Your complaint should go to Plantinga, shouldn't it? I am only
quoting his paper.
[snip]

>Now I cannot blame Plantinga for his 1991 comments but anyone quoting it
>in 2005 better be aware of the 14 years of progress made in evolutionary
>theory and data.

### DNA , etc. - Absolutely.

But this doesn't change:

Alvin Plantinga: "For the nontheist, evolution is the only game in town; it
is an essential part of any reasonably complete nontheistic way of
thinking; hence the devotion to it, the suggestions that it shouldn't be
discussed in public, and the venom, the theological odium with which
dissent is greeted." ...

"..I take the evidence for an old earth to be strong and the warrant for
the view that the Lord teaches that the earth is young to be relatively
weak. .. ...how can Christian intellectuals-scientists, philosophers,
historians, literary and art critics, Christian thinkers of every sort....
best serve the Christian community... One thing our experts can do for us
is help us avoid rejecting evolution for stupid reasons. The early
literature of Creation -Science, so called, is littered with arguments of
that eminently rejectable sort. We shouldn't reject contemporary science
unless we have to and we shouldn't reject it for the wrong reasons. It is
good thing for our scientists to point out some of these wrong reasons."

"..I can properly correct my view as to what reason teaches by appealing to
my understanding of Scripture; and I can properly correct my understanding
of Scripture by appealing to the teachings of reason. It is of the first
importance, however, that we correctly identify the relevant teachings of
reason.
Received on Sat Aug 6 18:07:54 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 06 2005 - 18:07:54 EDT