> But can we also ask for clarifications, such as what is meant when
>evolution is declared (without qualification) to be "a natural process,"
>and whether this is just an alternative way to say "unguided"?
I'd guess that they mean the same thing as if they were declaring
lightning, rain, and wind to be "natural processes". These are processes
that occur in nature, and for which science presently finds no need to
invoke the "supernatural".
The Christian, of course, knows that all these processes, including
evolution, are ultimately under God's authority. But I can't imagine
Christians protesting a description of wind as a "natural process". As
I've said before with regard to my theological disagreement with Phil
Johnson, the problem comes when we consider "natural processes" and
"things God does" to be disjoint sets, when Biblically the first is a
subset of the second.
While I'm here, let me mention the one part of Eugenie Scott's article
that troubled me:
> The letter exemplified how describing evolution as "impersonal" and
>"unsupervised" was being interpreted by individuals outside of science
>as anti-religious and unscientific.
There are of course, many of us *inside* science who see those terms as
anti-religious and unscientific. As George Murphy said, we should be
grateful that the statement was changed. But if these people can't
recognize that their original statement really was saying something
science has no business saying, there is still a fundamental problem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | Phone: (303)497-3555 |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | Fax: (303)497-5224 |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Don't blame the government for what I say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------