>P.S. To Glenn and Steve. Of course there are theistic evolutionists.
>But they part company with the scientific community at one point
>or another in the story of human evolution, usually by jettisoning
>MN when the theological pinch becomes too painful.
Let me point out again that Paul's comment above seems to assume that it's
necessary to swallow an entire discipline and its philosophical baggage.
Says who? Christians should engage in all the sciences. At the same time
they should be forthright about where they disagree philosophically with
their agnostic and atheistic colleagues. Understanding and advancement of
knowledge -- in the philosophy of science and its metaphysical implications
anyway -- have more likelihood of coming from controversy than from
agreement. Whatever advantages accrue to Christians from their
metaphysical views in the pursuit of science will only be evident if
Christians _pursue_ science. This means neither swallowing every
discipline whole hog nor striking out -- ala ICR and some other creationist
organizations -- to make a "new, Christian science". It means being
engaged with the entire scientific community, using the existing models
where they make sense, being willing to strike down weak assumptions, and
above all, being engaged philosophically. I'm not a biologist, but if I
were, I suspect I would want to work in areas of biology that are
controversial -- to Christians anyway -- because I truly believe that
advancement of knowledge is more likely to come from turbulent waters than
from still.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hamilton, Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems, GM R&D Center
Warren, MI
hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com / whamilto@mich.com (home)