Saturday, March 14, 2009
Dueling Theologies
Both Larry Moran and Mike Haubrich have favorably mentioned this article: "The Untenability of Theistic Evolution (2009)" by Bart Klink. I'm afraid I find it wanting in many ways, but there is no real need to go beyond this:To avoid conflict with the methodological naturalism of science, TE would have to exclude consideration of any supernatural intervention during creation. What, then, is the theistic aspect of TE? Why not simply speak of purely naturalistic evolution, or even deistic evolution, where God set the universe in motion but since let it (and biological evolution) run entirely on its own?
This is a basic misunderstanding of what TE is and/or what the methodological naturalism of science is. The very reason it is called "methodological naturalism" is that it applies specifically to the methodology of science. TE, on the other hand, is not science, it is a theological position concerning one possible theistic reaction to the results of science. A theological position need not apply the scientific method to itself.
Thus, someone adhering to TE doesn't have to exclude consideration of any supernatural intervention during creation as part of the theology; he or she (in accordance with TE) only needs to exclude supernaturalism from scientific explanations of nature (i.e. apply the scientific methodology to science).
The theology of TE can well be criticized as a species of "God in the gaps" or because it doesn't take the Bible as seriously as Mr. Klink thinks it should but, frankly, I'm as uninterested in atheists' theological musings as I am in theists'.
And to ask "[w]hy not simply speak of purely naturalistic evolution" is kinda missing the point of theology, isn't it?
TE may or may not suck as theology ... but as logic and philosophy it is at least consistent, just as (grudgingly) Mr. Klink admits it is consistent with science (even if not all adherents of TE are).
As far as I'm concerned, the latter point makes it superior theology ... as those things go*.
_______________________________
* Compare it, for example, to the Creation Letter Project Mike refers to.
.
Thus, someone adhering to TE doesn't have to exclude consideration of any supernatural intervention during creation as part of the theology; he or she (in accordance with TE) only needs to exclude supernaturalism from scientific explanations of nature (i.e. apply the scientific methodology to science).
The theology of TE can well be criticized as a species of "God in the gaps" or because it doesn't take the Bible as seriously as Mr. Klink thinks it should but, frankly, I'm as uninterested in atheists' theological musings as I am in theists'.
And to ask "[w]hy not simply speak of purely naturalistic evolution" is kinda missing the point of theology, isn't it?
TE may or may not suck as theology ... but as logic and philosophy it is at least consistent, just as (grudgingly) Mr. Klink admits it is consistent with science (even if not all adherents of TE are).
As far as I'm concerned, the latter point makes it superior theology ... as those things go*.
_______________________________
* Compare it, for example, to the Creation Letter Project Mike refers to.
.
Comments:
<< Home
How is theisitic evolution superior theology if it must constantly revise it's theology to keep up with the latest musings of science? Data requires interpretation. TE may be more consistent with the interpretations of evolutionary/uniformitarian/atheist science, but that just makes it inconsistent with supernatural revelation. Either the Bible is the revealed, inerrant Word of an infallible God who was there - or it isn't. Creation science is more consistent with the available data and with the overall condition of humanity, with the bigger picture. Catastrophism explains present geological features, is backed by the observed smaller-scale rapid sedimentation and erosion demonstrated at Mt Saint Helens and explains the existence of universal flood legends worldwide
# posted by 
: 1:30 PM
: 1:30 PM
How is theisitic evolution superior theology if it must constantly revise it's theology to keep up with the latest musings of science?
You mean the science that lets you post this message here (among many other things that you rely on daily)? If science works it too must be "truth" and can truth contradict truth?
Either the Bible is the revealed, inerrant Word of an infallible God who was there - or it isn't.
A false dichotomy dependant on your interpretation of the Bible being infallible.
Creation science is more consistent with the available data and with the overall condition of humanity, with the bigger picture. Catastrophism explains present geological features, is backed by the observed smaller-scale rapid sedimentation and erosion demonstrated at Mt Saint Helens and explains the existence of universal flood legends worldwide
All of which is drivel, easily refuted by a visit to the Talk Origins Archive or any other good site about science.
You mean the science that lets you post this message here (among many other things that you rely on daily)? If science works it too must be "truth" and can truth contradict truth?
Either the Bible is the revealed, inerrant Word of an infallible God who was there - or it isn't.
A false dichotomy dependant on your interpretation of the Bible being infallible.
Creation science is more consistent with the available data and with the overall condition of humanity, with the bigger picture. Catastrophism explains present geological features, is backed by the observed smaller-scale rapid sedimentation and erosion demonstrated at Mt Saint Helens and explains the existence of universal flood legends worldwide
All of which is drivel, easily refuted by a visit to the Talk Origins Archive or any other good site about science.
Rev. Breeden, Since the bible is demonstrably Not inerrant, your view is compromised. In my opinion, relying on the bible to be inerrant is a crutch, not to say possibly a form of idolatry (bibliolatry.)
Bob Carroll
Bob Carroll
# posted by : 8:35 PM
: 8:35 PM
With due respect, sir, you're not honestly conflating operational[observable, testable, repeatable & falsifiable] science that incorporates the scientific method and which has given us the Internet and rockets with forensic science which makes inferences about unique events in our historical past, are you?
CreationLetter.com actually addresses this common misconception in an article entiled, 'Why Creation is Foundational to Science - Not Evolution' at http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/why-evolution-is-not-foundational-to-science/
As for Mr. Carroll's assertion that the Bible is demonstrably not inerrant, I tend to find that those who find alleged errors and contradictions really have simply misunderstood the passage[s] in question.
Regards.
CreationLetter.com actually addresses this common misconception in an article entiled, 'Why Creation is Foundational to Science - Not Evolution' at http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/why-evolution-is-not-foundational-to-science/
As for Mr. Carroll's assertion that the Bible is demonstrably not inerrant, I tend to find that those who find alleged errors and contradictions really have simply misunderstood the passage[s] in question.
Regards.
# posted by : 9:52 PM
: 9:52 PM
With due respect, sir, you're not honestly conflating operational[observable, testable, repeatable & falsifiable] science that incorporates the scientific method and which has given us the Internet and rockets with forensic science which makes inferences about unique events in our historical past, are you?
No, I'm not "conflating" them ... they are the same thing. Almost all science involves inference from secondary observations of phenomena that cannot be directly observed (whatever that may mean, given that even looking at something is not "direct" observation) ... for example, the core of the sun has not been directly observed but science is justifiably confident of its being powered by fusion reactions sustained by the intense heat and pressure generated by gravity; electrons have never been directly observed and are known only by their effects. The observations that demonstrate the scientific fact of common descent are many and varied and repeatable, even if the events themselves are not.
It is amusing for a Christian creationist to deny possible knowledge of historic events, since that would render Jesus' death and resurrection unconfirmable legend. And claiming "witnesses" to Jesus' life does you no good, because those people's statements are themselves one time historical events that cannot be repeated. The inferences made by science are nothing more than reading the historical record, every bit as evidentiary as your "gospels," but without the added bias and outright lies that human witnesses can interject.
CreationLetter.com actually addresses this common misconception in an article entiled, 'Why Creation is Foundational to Science - Not Evolution'
The usual presuppositionism bafflegab. The reason science has converged on methodological naturalism is that it works. That operational [observable, testable, repeatable & falsifiable] science you are willing to accept and find so helpful also eschews supernatural explanations. No miracle is presumed when you turn on your computer or when a rocket is ignited. You only demand that miracles be included in biology because you don't like the result otherwise. Your distinction is ad hoc and driven only by your biases, not by a rational assessment of the scientific method or its results.
So, yes, a theology that recognizes the evidence of the natural world and adapts to it is far superior to one that has to make crap up to cling to beliefs about the empirically testable world against all evidence.
As for Mr. Carroll's assertion that the Bible is demonstrably not inerrant, I tend to find that those who find alleged errors and contradictions really have simply misunderstood the passage[s] in question.
Which, as I said before, naturally assumes that your interpretation is inerrant. Isn't there something in the Bible about hubris?
No, I'm not "conflating" them ... they are the same thing. Almost all science involves inference from secondary observations of phenomena that cannot be directly observed (whatever that may mean, given that even looking at something is not "direct" observation) ... for example, the core of the sun has not been directly observed but science is justifiably confident of its being powered by fusion reactions sustained by the intense heat and pressure generated by gravity; electrons have never been directly observed and are known only by their effects. The observations that demonstrate the scientific fact of common descent are many and varied and repeatable, even if the events themselves are not.
It is amusing for a Christian creationist to deny possible knowledge of historic events, since that would render Jesus' death and resurrection unconfirmable legend. And claiming "witnesses" to Jesus' life does you no good, because those people's statements are themselves one time historical events that cannot be repeated. The inferences made by science are nothing more than reading the historical record, every bit as evidentiary as your "gospels," but without the added bias and outright lies that human witnesses can interject.
CreationLetter.com actually addresses this common misconception in an article entiled, 'Why Creation is Foundational to Science - Not Evolution'
The usual presuppositionism bafflegab. The reason science has converged on methodological naturalism is that it works. That operational [observable, testable, repeatable & falsifiable] science you are willing to accept and find so helpful also eschews supernatural explanations. No miracle is presumed when you turn on your computer or when a rocket is ignited. You only demand that miracles be included in biology because you don't like the result otherwise. Your distinction is ad hoc and driven only by your biases, not by a rational assessment of the scientific method or its results.
So, yes, a theology that recognizes the evidence of the natural world and adapts to it is far superior to one that has to make crap up to cling to beliefs about the empirically testable world against all evidence.
As for Mr. Carroll's assertion that the Bible is demonstrably not inerrant, I tend to find that those who find alleged errors and contradictions really have simply misunderstood the passage[s] in question.
Which, as I said before, naturally assumes that your interpretation is inerrant. Isn't there something in the Bible about hubris?
P.S. If you really think forensic science cannot provide "truth," at least beyond a reasonable doubt, then we're going to have to release a whole lot of murderers and rapists.
Of course, nothing can provide evidence beyond an unreasonable doubt ... such as yours.
Of course, nothing can provide evidence beyond an unreasonable doubt ... such as yours.
Good dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you for your information.
# posted by : 12:04 AM
: 12:04 AM
michael kors handbags
nike blazer
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
cheap jordan shoes
ecco shoes outlet
ugg boots
coach outlet
seahawks jersey
michael kors handbags
Post a Comment
nike blazer
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
cheap jordan shoes
ecco shoes outlet
ugg boots
coach outlet
seahawks jersey
michael kors handbags
<< Home
