quote:

---

Theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution, treating only undirected natural processes in the origin and development of life.

Theistic evolution places theism and evolution in an odd tension. If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God’s purpose was ostensibly to conceal his purpose in creation. Within theistic evolution, God is a master of stealth who constantly eluded our best efforts to detect him empirically. Yes, the theistic evolutionist believes that the universe is designed. Yet insofar as there is design in the universe, it is design we recognize strictly through the eyes of faith. Accordingly the physical world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed.

---

I am sorry. I promise to do better Historical research for future posts, should I refer to dates again.

On your answer to my closed question, good, science is no basis for faith. But you're not giving much away. Why do you believe that God does not exist?

And Dyfrig, yes it is a philosophical position. However, if you read some of his writings on (for example) the Origins website he doesn't appear to realise that.

Can I add to Dyfrig's question...?

How does William Dembski's philosophical position (ID) differ in its nature from say the philosophical nature of materialism ("Darwinian-influenced philosophy") or theistic evolution ("Darwinian & Christian -influenced philosophy")? I'm not asking how each philosphical position differs, but by nature, can any be said to have greater legitimacy than the other? If so, on what basis?

Actually I do prefer Alan's term but the 'Theistic Evolution' label has been around for a while, despite its shortcomings. Probably because it's with origins that people have the biggest problems.

The only differnce between you and me is not the ability to change labels but the ability to change our views of the material world...I was once a chief deacon of the cult of Dawkinism (1986-1993), then perhaps a theistic materialist (1993-2001), now, perhaps an IDist (though the jury is still out...)

No one has answered my question on legitimacy of philosophical materialism, theistic materialism or IDism. Are any legitimate philosophies, and if so, on what basis?

If by ID you mean a philosophy in which there are empirically measurable consequences uniquely identifiable as proof of design (which is certainly how Dembski, and from what's been said on this thread Behe, come across as saying) then the position is logically unsupported in my opinion.

If you're saying ID is a philosophy with no such empirical consequences then to be honest the difference between ID and theistic materialism are almost non-existant.

As usual, I disagree with Karl. I believe ID will help undermine the prominence of philosophical materialism and the practical atheism of the west. Turning to Richard Lewontin’s ‘The Doctrine of DNA: Biology as an ideology’, I’ve read past the introduction and have found a quite brilliant attack on the ‘nature not nurture’ ideology of biology (that we are what we are because of our genes). In his essay ‘All in the Genes?’ Lewontin says:

quote:

---

How are we able to resolve the contradiction of immense inequalities in a society that claims to be founded on equality? There are two possibilities. We might say that it was all a fake, a set of slogans meant to replace a regime of aristocrats with a regime of wealth and privilege of a different sort, that inequality in our society is structural and an integral aspect of the whole of our political and social life. To say that, however, would be deeply subversive because it would call for yet another revolution if we wanted to make good on our hopes for liberty and equality for all. It is not a popular idea among teachers, newspaper editors, college professors, successful politicians, indeed anyone who has the power to help form public conscience.

The vulgar error that confuses heritability and fixity has been, over the years, the most powerful single weapon that biological ideologues have had in legitimating a society of inequality.

---

This is a similar to University of California, Berkley left wing academic, Todd Glitin’s lament in his essay ‘In the twilight of common dreams’. Philip Johnson reviews Glitin’s work and summarises:

quote:

---

What the Left plainly needs is a new theolgy, with our without God. Glitin makes clear what the elements of such a theology must be. It must provide a universal vision that inspires people to regard themselves as fundamentally united, despite their differing social circumstances and cultural experiences. It must provide a basis for an objective rationality of both fact and value, refuting the current Left doctrine that “objectivity is only another word for white make subjectivity.” It must reject the market-orientated notion that individual gratification is the purpose of life, by providing a higher purpose. It must provide a reason for the economic winners to be generous and compassionate and for the losers to strive to become as productive as they are able.

Where is such a theology to be found? I could offer a suggestion, but I don’t think Todd Glitin wants to hear it.

---

If ID undermines philosophical materialism, then that theology, which Glitin would not care to listen to and the revolution Lewontin fears, might begin to make an impact in western culture. Kind of like a continuous Jubilee 2000. Not an armed revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, but a revolution of the heart of mankind.

Going back to the post you mentioned on the 14th August, you said

quote:

---

So getting down to specifics, which material phenomena do you believe are outside the realm of scientific inquiry?

---

You are missing my point. I am not saying that material phenomena should be excluded from scientific inquiry.

Let's take the mammilian blood coagulation cascade again. Scientific inquiry has now observed the material phenomena of how blood clots when mammals are wounded and how it avoids clotting otherwise. Scientific inquiry is now complete in this regard. With the understanding of how blood clotting works, science may now go on to investigate blood disorders like hemophilia.

That description is the practical limit of scientific enquiry. Would you agree?

Now, looking at the mammilian blood coagulation cascade, we can draw two philosophical conclusions. Either that it was the product of an unguided, unsupervised, impersonal, random, purposeless process or it was specified, designed to work that way.

'Scientific inquiry' which goes beyond the 'how it works' and 'how can we fix it when it's broke' is in the realms of justification of philosophical materialism. Trying to prove that anything is the product of an unguided, unsupervised, impersonal, random, purposeless process can be described as 'science to prove a philosophy'.

I've read this page on The Lorentz Transformations , the maths is a bit beyond me. I understand that The Lorentz Transformations are a speculative mathematical model which can not be empirically tested because we can not be in two places at one time. If we could test them empirically, are you saying we could deduce some philosophy from them?

Neil

[URL fixed]

Why do you claim that your philosophy is not derived from scientific conclusions and then ask me to justify my understanding of scientific conclusions?

My faith in God is based on the life, teachings, fulfillment of Old Testament Law and prophesy, death, resurrection, ascension and future return of Christ Jesus.

What's yours based on? Put it negatively, who do you think Jesus is?

You said on the same post

quote:

---

As far as my non-belief in God goes, it is simply a result of my never having needed to hypothesize a Deity.

---

In light of my question to you about Jesus, there is no need for you to hypothesize. Faith in Christ is not subjective, Jesus was/is very real.

As far as your need goes, are you any different from the rest of us? Like it or not, if Christianity is true, if what Jesus taught is true, we will all face moral accountability and our need for an advocate on that day will be very great indeed. Have you considered this carefully?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Let's take the mammilian blood coagulation cascade again. Scientific inquiry has now observed the material phenomena of how blood clots when mammals are wounded and how it avoids clotting otherwise. Scientific inquiry is now complete in this regard. With the understanding of how blood clotting works, science may now go on to investigate blood disorders like hemophilia.

That description is the practical limit of scientific enquiry. Would you agree?

---

quote:

---

I understand that The Lorentz Transformations are a speculative mathematical model which can not be empirically tested

---

Your motivation for seeking the previous function, if there was one, for the proteins involved in blood clotting is a valid scientific inquiry. But, as I said to Crœsos, why do we keep referring the detail of scientific theory when we are talking about governing philosophy? Can you explain to me in lay terms, keeping in mind that I am a civil engineer, whether or not philosophical materialism or atheism can be proved by The Lorentz Transformations or any other mathematical, empirical or biological function?

If we take a hard look at secular humanism, the governing Western philosophy, we find that Christianity is permitted a subjective position in society. I commend to everyone on this thread the study of the Council for Secular Humanism - A Secular Humanist Declaration . Reading all items in the declaration we find that 'Religious experience' is permitted as subjective if helpful to the individual.

What are the effects of this on Christian practice? Charismatics can raise their hands and speak in tongues, if that's what they want to do, subjectively. Anglo-Catholics can wear cassocks and surplices and stand north facing at the 'altar', if that's what they want to do, subjectively. Evangelicals can earnestly study the bible and apply it to their lives individually & corporately, if that's what they want to do, subjectively. We can even fight amongst ourselves about which is the right manifestation of corporate gatherings in our faith in Christ and run the 'Mystery Worshipper' to highlight the differences. But, if we claim that Christianity is more than a subjective experience, if we claim that Christianity is true, we're told that we're either mad to believe such nonsense or that we are stepping out of place.

If we are Christians then we identify with the sacrifice offered by Christ, once for all. It is true, not only for Charismatics, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals (regardless of our preferred style of corporate gathering on Sunday) it is true for all humans. But philosophical materialism, secular humanism, keeps the practical atheist 'safe' from that truth because we are told 'what works for you is fine, but please don't pester me with your subjective experience'.

Now, to the point of this thread. What is the mechanism which has relegated Christianity from its true theological position as objective truth to a false theological position as subjective experience? It is the mechanism of Christianity being subset of philosophical materialism. Of crucial importance to this situation is this question, what is one of the greatest supporting 'objective facts' of secular humanism? It is the unguided, unsupervised, impersonal, random, purposeless development of life on earth. According to secular humanism, humans are what we are, not because we were made this way but a supernatural being, but by a material process over which there was no control. At the deepest level, Darwinian theory excuses us of any moral responsibility. Christians have no choice but to retreat to a subjective belief and practice, because we have been marginalised by secular humanism and the 'triumph' of Darwinism as a means of explaining our origin and development.

But, ID challenges the objectivity of the claims of the Darwinian theory of evolution, not because it wants to undermine secular humanism, but because ID does not accept Dawkin's 'Blind Watchmaker' thesis because it does not fit with the evidence of complexity in life. ID says that there is a watchmaker. Michael Behe's observations may or my not be empirically detected, it may not be possible to detect that blood coagulation cascades are the product of intelligence, but Michael's Behe's deductions are at least as legitimate as Richard Dawkin's. Like my earlier example of the oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle, one will see it as fluke and another critical design to life on earth.

ID undermines the authority of secular humanism, because, without conclusive supporting 'scientific' objectivity, secular humanism suffers the same fate as Christianity suffered post-Enlightenment. Without Darwinism, secular humanism is reduced to subjective faith, not objective reality. Practical atheists might find that there is no philosophical or 'scientific' basis for their faith after all. And our Christian faith, our faith in Christ, may be elevated again to a position of objectivity not subjective experience.

Let the revolution begin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
why do we keep referring the detail of scientific theory when we are talking about governing philosophy?

---

quote:

---

'Scientific inquiry' which goes beyond the 'how it works' and 'how can we fix it when it's broke' is in the realms of justification of philosophical materialism.

---

Christianity is about relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This will differ for everyone who has experience of it.

The particular view of Christianity that you propound appears to be directly arising from Enlightenment presuppositions (particularly in relation to its treatment of "objective truth").

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:

Now, to the point of this thread. What is the mechanism which has relegated Christianity from its true theological position as objective truth to a false theological position as subjective experience? It is the mechanism of Christianity being subset of philosophical materialism. Of crucial importance to this situation is this question, what is one of the greatest supporting 'objective facts' of secular humanism? It is the unguided, unsupervised, impersonal, random, purposeless development of life on earth. According to secular humanism, humans are what we are, not because we were made this way but a supernatural being, but by a material process over which there was no control. At the deepest level, Darwinian theory excuses us of any moral responsibility.

---

Its not the scientific fact that you have the problem with then. I'm afraid you can't really say that someone using a scientific theory to justify their philosophical beliefs makes the theory they are referring to any more or any less "correct" ( whatever that means hey guys

I'd suggest that attacking a shaky philosophy is a lot easier than attacking what is, like it or not, an exceedingly well-supported scientific theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Alan did have one thing incorrect though. Einstein used the Lorentz transformations in the formulation of Special, not General, Relativity.

---

I'll be away the next couple of weeks, so although I should be able to pop in I may not be as active in this discussion.

Why is this? Why is Darwin's theory defended more passionately than Christ Jesus?

Ham 'n' eggs, you mentioned presuppositions which reminded me of the arguments over 'the new hermeneutic'. You have made a very valid point, that we see what we do because of our presuppositions. Can it be that our presuppositions influence our interpretation of material phenomena in the same way they influence our interpretation of the Bible?

It is not that the same set of presuppositions is applied to material phenomena and interpretation of scripture, but that both disciplines are affected by our particular set of presuppositions.

IMHO, the concept of 'the new hermeneutic' can be applied to our approach to Darwinian theory. The 'evidence' for the unguided, random, purposeless development of all life on earth is strong but incomplete. It therefore requires human thought to extrapolate ideas which complete the theory, human minds expand the evidence to fit the theory. Darwinism is a theory of grand extrapolation, variation in finch beaks and peppered moths are extrapolated to form a grand scheme of a developmental process for variation and complexity. The extrapolation is achieved by a process which involves our presuppositions.

We are not born with any presuppositions, so where do our presuppositions come from? The classroom, TV, our surrounding culture, including, of course, the books we choose to read (and those we choose not to read), the evidence we choose to see and that which we choose to ignore.

Darwinism, therefore, survives not because it is objectively true or unfalsifiable but because of our presuppositions, our cultural & historical environment. This is as true today as it has been for every other culture and time before us which has observed material phenomena. Observations of material phenomena, whether those observations are true or false, have been adopted to suit our presuppositions. The theory of a flat earth fitted a presupposition. The Ptolemaic theory of the universe fitted a presupposition. Darwinism fits a presupposition. Each theory has been defended passionately and dogmatically when new theories begin to emerge and Darwinism is no different. The dominant western philosophy requires (neo)Darwinism to be true, so (neo)Darwinism is true because of that presupposition, not because it is objectively true.

Neil

PS Crœsos…you haven't explained who you think Jesus is.

quote:

---

The physical world was created by God and everything in it continues to be sustained by his will. Thus, any true theory of how that physical world works cannot conflict with a Christian view of God, for the Bible says that the physical world is entirely moved and controlled by God, working in and through what we regard as 'natural processes'.

Important implications flow from this. Firstly, finding a 'natural' cause for an event is no reason to dismiss God as the fundamental cause. In fact, if nothing else, our survey of the biblical teaching should make clear that the word 'natural' is rather inappropriate, especially if it is contrasted to 'supernatural'. In the end, there is no difference between the two, in the Bible's view. All causes within the world are ultimately caused by God. So even the most complete scientific theory, with every causal chain thoroughly described, is no reason to conclude that God is not there. From the Bible's viewpoint, it is merely an elaborate description of the wise order that God has created, and now sustains, in the world. The two are not competing explanations; they are both true explanations.

---

If science and Christianity are 'unnatural enemies', why is there conflict? The conflict arises, not over the material evidence, but over a theistic presupposition and an atheistic or deistic presupposition. One view, as Birkett points out, is based on a biblical view of the world, what are the other ones based on?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Looking back at this thread, I have been surprised by the level of passion and determination displayed by some of the Christians on the board in defense of Darwin's theory of evolution (the unguided, random, purposeless development of all life on earth). If only Christians would defend Jesus with such vigor.

Why is this? Why is Darwin's theory defended more passionately than Christ Jesus?

---

Perhaps because if he's the son of God he should be better placed to defend himself than a mere theory?

Also because this thread is about "The Death of Darwinism" not "The Death of Christianity".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:

Darwinism, therefore, survives not because it is objectively true or unfalsifiable but because of our presuppositions, our cultural & historical environment.

---

I would dispute this assertion. Darwinism survives, in the face of other, better, later, theories for the same reason that Newtonian Mechanics survives in the face of Einsteinian Relativity, because, at a simple level, it works and is understandable.

quote:

---

And finally because a lot of Christians misidentify the Theory of Evolution as their enemy.

---

Kirsten Birkett shows why science and Christianity are not at odds, because a Biblical understanding of the world expects order because God is an ordered God and 'natural processes' are part of God's order. But, Christianity did not make an enemy of science, science made an enemy of Christianity and continues to do so, and the BBC gave a classic example today. By assuming naturalism for science, scientists have come to believe that naturalism is true.

The 'Discovery' program today was titled 'Pain is a problem'. The program was introduced by the statement

quote:

---

'Pain is a problem, it was once religion which tried to answer the problem of pain, but now science gives us the answer to the problem...science has shifted pain from morals to mechanisms.'

---

After discussing the way pain is detected in the body, by interviewing many scientists who described how our bodies detect pain, the program turned to 'Christianity'. One interview was made with a Christian art critic who described works of Christ in pain on the cross and described an American gay HIV+ artist whose name I forget and whose stage show involved self mutilation, including many Christian overtones such as a crown of steel thorns. These religious overtones were attributed to the fact that this artist was the child of religious fundamentalist parents, and he had been 'groomed for Christian ministry', obviously making him the screwed-up basket case he is(was?) now.

The art critic was scarcely relevant to the question, but at least she provided a good straw man of an artist whose self expression of pain as art was the result of unscientific religious fundamentalists. Why didn't the program try quoting CS Lewis from 'the problem of pain', where the program had perhaps unwittingly derived its title? Perhaps that would have given too serious a consideration to Christian thought.

Having dealt such a blow to the credibility of Christianity, the program turned back to science and molecular mechanisms, neurons, inheritance and experiments on mice, good rational stuff. Then it took a poke at Dr Livingston's report of being attacked by a lion. When Dr L experienced no pain during the mauling he concluded that it was a 'merciful provision by our benevolent creator to reduce the pain of death'. Back to science, and 'opiod peptides', which explain Dr Livingston's lack of pain...'you see' implied the program 'there is no need for God to be involved at all.'

The conclusion was that pain was a problem but science would solve it with drugs and pain killers. Well done science and well done BBC, good reporting, if you count good reporting as a biased, bigoted, intolerant, illiberal treatment of a serious issue.

The real problem of the painful treatment of this subject was that the producer was only being faithful to his presuppositions...that science is rational and Christianity is barking mad. The frightening thing is that this is not some right wing fascist extremism, inciting religious intolerance and hatred, it is main stream global broadcasting in the name of 'science'.

The BBC article demonstrates that this is not about 'evolution' or any other beloved theory, it is about legitimacy amoungst the intellectual elite.

Perhaps congratulations on your stamina are in order, for keeping this thread going so long. Can I observe that you seem to be clinging to your initial position with some tenacity (in the face of some very knowledgeable and reasonable comments by Karl and others) ? Seems to me that both sides (those who talk up conflict between science and religion and those who play it down) feel fairly strongly about these issues.

quote:

---

posted by Neil Robbie:
If science and Christianity are 'unnatural enemies', why is there conflict?

---

Perhaps this conflict centres around the T-word. "What is truth?" asked Pilate, and then left the room, thereby missing out on at least 14 pages of intelligent argument...

What is it stake is whether Christian religious beliefs are a "truth" that is "truer" than scientific "truth" (a position we might call "religious supremacy"). Or vice versa ("scientific supremacy"). Or whether these sorts of truth are complementary.

Blaming "science" for the conflict is unfair. It goes back at least to the days of Galileo, and at that time in history the Church claimed an authority over scientific "truth" - the religious supremacists were in power. [the details of the Galileo affair aren't relevant; the point is the attitude to truth].

I'm in the "complementary" camp - both science and religion are valid realms of human understanding, and properly understood there is no conflict between them. I don't feel that this position is undermined by any amount of quoting scientists who hold "scientific supremacy" views. Nor is the validity of "scientific" truths undermined by pointing out that scientists are only human and therefore form their views in the same way that other humans do.

Why does it matter ? Because people are in need of God, and misrepresenting Christianity as anti-science creates a barrier on their path to finding Him...

quote:

---

the unguided, random, purposeless development of all life on earth

---

Urgh. I was trying to stay away from this thread, but I couldn't let this slide. Darwinian evolution does not rest on blind chance. It is rather better explained as chance mutation plus natural selection, natural selection being anything but random. Chance alone would be astronomically unlikely to result in the development of the human eye. Such mutations, followed by such selection, as has been extensively laid out by others here, are overwhelmingly supported in the fossil record.

Karl

I wish to offer you an apology for the way I have behaved on this thread and argued so strongly against your position of theistic evolution. I am truly sorry and hope you can forgive me.

You might wonder what has brought about my change of heart. As you know, the matter of science and Christianity is fairly new to me. I have been a Christian for 9 years and have chosen to ignore science rather than face the challenge it makes, in its popular form, to Christianity. Reading Philip Johnson and Michael Behe hit a chord with my personal view of the world, which I described in the way I saw the intelligence of the oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle in animals and plants. Because their views fitted my own presuppositions, I assumed ID was true and picked up their claims as dogmatically as some claim other theories.

As you know I have been juggling many books during the writing of this thread (including Behe, Schroeder, Johnson, Dawkins, Gould, God (the Bible), Whitcomb and latterly, Birkett). Well, I finished Kirsten Birkett’s book (Unnatural Enemies: An introduction to science and Christianity) last night and she changed my mind on ID and theistic evolution, though she mentions neither in her book and I am not saying that either is correct.

Kirsten Birkett is a lecturer at an Anglican seminary in Sydney Australia (if you know which one, please do not write her off as conservative Evangelical, her treatment of the matter is balanced and enlightening) and she teaches on science and Christianity. If you would like to find out why I no longer believe ID to be science and worth defending, you might like to order her book which you can get from The Good Book Company for a fiver.

I remain convinced of intelligent design, but not in the sense the ID movement states, because I do not think, as many people pointed out to me, that the empirical evidence can be shown to ‘prove’ irreducible complexity or specified complexity. These are two more theories waiting for science to show how they came into existence. I believe in the ongoing work of God in creation from an informed Biblical Theology.

This is not to say that I have given up against the claims of science to replace religion. Thomas Huxley may have won the day and his influence on the minds of popular culture today is still immense. John, remember my list of parallel positions within science as the new church, and you asked me what planet I was on? Well, it was not me, but Thomas Huxley that established that way of thinking. He referred to the ‘church scientific’, himself as one of its ‘bishops’ and his talks as ‘lay sermons’.

It is the ‘church scientific’ which is the enemy of God’s church. Christianity did not make science its enemy, science assumed the position of the aggressor 160 years ago and maintains that popular stance with proponents like Dawkins. I no longer think that ID will undermine the authority of secular humanism, philosophical materialism or naturalism, but as someone clever said at the start of this thread scientists are not to be found in church because of the current vacuity of the message. The church needs to get up out of the dust, brush itself off from the beating it has taken since Huxely’s days and put science in its proper place. Then perhaps, the BBC will stop broadcasting anti-religious claptrap and Glitin’s revolution may begin.

Humble apologies again, Karl and everyone else who was on the wrong end of my blind dogmatism.

Can we change the focus of the thread to the question of putting science in its proper place? How can we as a church achieve a proper public understanding of the relationship between science and Christianity? That is that science and Christianity are unnatural enemies and that it is the claims of the 'church scientific' which has assumed the role of aggressor and victor without reasonable grounds.

With the benefit of GMT+7 hours and reading Kirsten Birkett's book (BTW, if you visit the Good Book Company, the 'Unnatural Enemies' can be found under the 'engaging with the world' section), the difference between theology and the 'church scientific' is our understanding of the terms you used to describe evolution

quote:

---

chance mutation plus natural selection

---

This is the crux. How do we understand chance mutation and natural selection? How does 'chance' fit with a Biblical understanding of God? Does 'natural' selection involve God or exclude God? (cf my post of 20 August 2001 05:35)

quote:

---

the Bible says that the physical world is entirely moved and controlled by God, working in and through what we regard as 'natural processes'

---

Now this dualism, this division of human knowing into two separate spheres- the objective and the subjective- held together for a while; at least, until the Enlightenment got under full steam and issued in the skepticism of the 18th and 19th centuries, when it seemed possible to dispense with anything other than the vague moral sense that religion might provide one with. Of course, eventually people realized that one didn't even need religion for a sense of morality.

In the 20th century this Cartesian dualism has issued in a division of "fact" and "value"; science holding all the facts, religion- and other similarly etheral things like ethics- holding the values. Facts are incontrovertible, provable units of sensory experience. Values, on the other hand, are relative, arguable, and unprovable mutual agreements between people.

In reality, of course, as much late 20th century philosophy of science and religion were to demonstrate, the Cartesian dualism of "objective" and "subjective", of "fact" and "value", was just so much imaginative fancy. The truth is that scientific and religious communities (not mutually exclusive entities) conduct themselves in very similar fashion: each is done in community, so providing a check on the idiosyncratic and heretical; each has its dogmas or postulates, unprovable assertions on which the epistemological system is based; each depends on models and metaphors, sometimes on successive paradigms (thank you, Thomas Kuhn), to provide a common language for members of the community ("believers", if you will).

Even the notion of "objective" is suspect, because we now realize that there are no uninterpreted data, that merely deciding what counts as data ("facts") is a matter of interpretation, that every decision (including the dogmatic postulate) amounts also to a decision to exclude, a prior, what is decided not to be a datum.

The problem arises when a naive scientism, represented both by many practicing scientists and by most layfolk as well (isn't is interesting how we use these "religious" terms to describe such things?), insists that it provides the only reliable guide to reality, that its conclusions are provable and that those of religion are not (well, of course they would be when what is provable is defined a priori in such a way as to exclude the activity of God).

Absolute codswallop. We can no more prove that only that which is empirically verifiable exists (or even that empiricism can define the limits of creation) that we can prove that God exists. Empirical materialism makes an excellent methodology, but when pressed as metaphysics (as thoroughgoing empirical materialists do), it becomes as thoroughly dogmatic as any creed.

(Understand that, as a creedal catholic Christian, I am not attacking creedalism. On the contrary, dogmatic assumptions or postulates or axioms are necessary in any system of human knowing, or you are paralyzed by the inability to decide what constitutes truth in any sense.)

In the end, science and religion are very two very similar ways of appropriating one way of human knowing, but to different ends: on the one hand the way the physical, empirical determinable universe behaves; and on the other hand, discernment of ultimate meaning, of truth, of value (in the sense of worth), and for followers of biblical religion- Christians and Jews- the discernment of the creating, revealing and saving activity of the one true and living God in his creation.

To return to the issue that has produced several hundred posts on this thread alone (leaving aside hundreds of posts on similar threads on these boards in times past), my position is this: no Christian, no believer in biblical religion (in the sense of Christians and Jews) can uncritically accept the assumptions and conclusions of Darwinian evolution. Don't misunderstand me on this point; I find "young creation science" intellectually shallow and in some measure self-delusional, and I sense in the Intelligent Design movement (while I respect their bravado in challenging a scientific establishment in its comfortable and unquestioning dogmaticism) something akin to an Anselmian rationalist attempt to prove God's existence. But no believer in biblical religion can accept the idea that only the material, the empirically verifiable exists; both Judaism and Christianity teaches that God is the Creator "of all that is, seen and unseen." The foundational axiom for empirical materialist science is that only that which is empirically verifiable may be said conclusively to exist. The foundational axiom for Christian faith is that the Word of God became incarnate, took human flesh, in Jesus Christ.

Nor can that believer accept the idea that the creation of life has proceeded in an entirely directionless manner (this obtains regardless of one's views of chance and natural selection, see Laura's and Neil's posts, above- neoDarwinian evolution insists that there be nothing teleological about evolutionary development, however adaptive it may be) or that life developed in a manner necessitated by the historical exigencies of environment. The first notion is a denial of God's sovereignty and intention in creating humanity, so that rather than our being created for dialogue with God and for God's delight in us (and we in God), we can at best conceive of God's involvment in the rise of human life to be something on the order of realizing one bright and sunny epoch, "Hey! There's a creature down there now that I can talk to!" The second notion, of the necessity of human development, is a denial of the sovereignty and grace of God in creating us; rather than beings whom God created freely for dialogue and delight, we are being who necessarily arose form the historical exigencies of the primordial ooze.

Having said this, that I find neoDarwinian evolution to be incompatible with the biblical revelation of God because of its foundational assumptions and its anti-teleological conclusions; and that I find "young earth creation science" to be intellectually untenable (and it denies the vastness of God, too, to insist that it had to be done over the past 7000 years- that's a mighty damned short eternity past!); and that I find the Intelligent Design movement suspect, not because of any dissembling or obfuscating on the part of the considerable intellects involved, but because I find it too rationalist for my biblical-fideist soul; where am I left?

With something that many long-time posters here have read from my keyboard before: creative evolution or evolutionary creationism. What do I mean by that? Well, not theistic evolution, at least as that is usually defined (that God creates the universe- Big Bang- giving it a sort of push in the direction of eventuating in human life- strikes me as remarkably deist in belief). What I mean is that I believe, as fervently as any young earth creationist or intelligent design proponent, that God created all life- all life- in the universe (hence its being called "creation"), not by filling in gaps where "missing link" couldn't carry on the evolutionary process, but in every moment, every nanosecond of the creative process. Viewed from the perspective of an empirical materialist methodology, this looks very much like evolution (whether gradual or punctuated), because God creates (dare I even say, experiments?) to fit the environment.

The time has come finally to liberate our common way of human knowing from the epistemological shackles of Cartesian dualism (or better, of its latter-day bastardy), to restore science and religion to their proper places in human endeavor.

As an example of the ongoing battle, I heard another BBC World Service program today called 'Racial myths' which was a puff for the legitimacy of science over morals to the exclusion of Christianity.

The program followed this argument. It claimed that 'race sciences' were responsible for racial genocide in the 1830s and 1840s, for example when the British wiped out Tasmanian Aborigines. Moral justification for the genocide at that time was based on the scientific fact that primitive people were doomed to extinction. But, claimed the program, 'liberal racial attitudes' were responsible for the abolition of slavery at the same time (1838). Now, this is contrary to my understanding of history in which Wilberforce, The Clapham sect and John Newton were responsible for the abolition of slavery (but the BBC would not want to attribute anything beneficial in society to Christianity).

The program went on to Scottish Historian and philosopher Thomas Carlylse who was described by the program as 'a prophet, a sage' (and the use of religious language for such a racist was, IMHO, no accident). Next, Scotsman Robert Knox, the notorious gravedigger, and advocate of racial genocide who claimed that

quote:

---

races are naturally and essentially different, race is a fact, it is everything.

---

quote:

---

'at some period in the future the civilised races would exterminate the savage races'

---

Then the program brought in the hero on a white charger, 'the Liberal establishment', John Stuart Mill (backed up by Huxley, Darwin & Lyle) whose critique on Thomas Carlylse (which was backed by Dickens and Charles Kingsley) abolished the scientific conclusions Carlysle had read into Darwin's theory. Hooray for the liberal establishment. Hitler was then discussed as the last hangover of the conclusions of Robert Knox and Thomas Carlysle.

And the conclusion of the program?

quote:

---

'Now science is undoing the damage done by the pseudo-science of Darwinism, because genetics are showing that we are one race'.

---

Rather than commending Christians with the abolition of slavery and admitting that the Bible was right about the essential unity of humanity, the BBC once again says a big 'well done' to science for defeating racism and abolishing slavery. Biased, bigoted, anti-Christian, inflammatory reporting by 'the liberal establishment'.

Unbelievable. So, in light of such reporting, how do we

quote:

---

liberate our common way of human knowing from the epistemological shackles of Cartesian dualism (or better, of its latter-day bastardy), to restore science and religion to their proper places in human endeavor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Steve_R, before making patronising comments about people being too simple to understand science, please go back and read my post of 17 July 2001 10:15. Richard Lewontin explains why that argument is not only patronising...

---

I have re-read that post and I quote from it:

quote:

---

Joe Public has no way of questioning Lewontin's philosophy because, as Lewontin pointed out, no one understands his science.

---

now who's being patronising?

I stand by my original comments as not being patronising but, unfortunately, true of the scientific knowledge of the majority of people.

I am sorry for my outburst and for accusing you of patronising non-scientists, please forgive me, I will try not do it again. If you take time to read that post again you will see that my statement was a summary of Lewontin's quote. I said, in summary,

quote:

---

I found the above statement refreshingly honest. Lewontin has stated the truth clearly and concisely…God is dead…science rules ethics, morality, culture, purpose and meaning.

Joe Public has no way of questioning Lewontin's philosophy because, as Lewontin pointed out, no one understands his science.

My questions are these?
 What gives science this legitimacy?
 What keeps Darwin's philosophical train in motion?
 How will the church counter this legitimacy?

---

I was summarising that Lewontin tells people like me, Joe Public (an engineer outside the main body of science), that I don’t know what I'm talking about and so I should remain silent. This is not about whether or not Darwin was right in his observations but whether Lewontin as a philosophical naturalist has greater legitimacy than a philosophical theist to shape public morals and ethics. Todd has explained that this assumed legitimacy stems from corrupted Cartesian dualism, that is that

quote:

---

Science, this dualism would have us believe, is the realm of fact, of data, of the provable. Religion is the realm of values, of meaning, of morality, of the ethereal and the ineffable

---

BBC programs which give science moral legitimacy and no legitimacy to Christianity are a product of this corrupted understanding. Therefore, as Todd has answered the first two questions, the last of my three questions from over a month ago remains valid and unanswered. Todd has said that

quote:

---

The time has come finally to liberate our common way of human knowing from the epistemological shackles of Cartesian dualism (or better, of its latter-day bastardy), to restore science and religion to their proper places in human endeavor.

---

How will the church, indeed all of western culture, achieve liberation from such firmly binding shackles?

How does your 'theistic evolution' vary from Kirsten Birkett's summary

quote:

---

The physical world was created by God and everything in it continues to be sustained by his will. Thus, any true theory of how that physical world works cannot conflict with a Christian view of God, for the Bible says that the physical world is entirely moved and controlled by God, working in and through what we regard as 'natural processes'.

---

?