<<Terry M. Gray wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> My only reaction is that I'm not so sure that I want ASA so tightly linked
> to the the Mike Behe/Phil Johnson/Intelligent Design agenda. What you've
> written is fine as your perspective-- but I have strong disagreements with
> Behe, Johnson, and even Wiester. As far as I'm aware the only stance that
> the ASA takes is that we would if we accept evolution, which some but not
> all do, we believe that it is a God-guided process. But even there, the
> God-guided process may look to the scientific observer no different from a
> purposeless, unguided process. This is where my disagreement with Behe and
> Johnson come in--and where your news release supports them. They seem to
> deny that God-guided evolution might look just like purposeless, unguided
> evolution to the scientific observer and that there are serious flaws in
> evolutionary theory. I and many in the ASA disagree with this.>>
I am confused. I can agree that evolution might be a God-guided process. If
that's the case, how then can it "look just like purposeless, unguided
evolution to the scientific observer"? Is not this a contradiction? Will
not the scientific observer eliminate your God-guided view by use of Ockham's
razor, which cuts away useless or gratuitous ideas in explanation, and
accepts the simplest hypothesis which can explain the data? Is not
"God-guided evolution" a useless and gratuitous explanation in the eyes of
the scientific observer, best to be cut away?
I am open for suggestions on resolving my confusion.
Bob