I agree to some extent & didn't intend to imply that such cultural factors are
irrelevant to its acceptance. Certainly many people (including many liberal clergy)
accept evolution & scoff at its opponents, but couldn't give any sustained argument to
support the theory.
> While your characterization of Christian anti-evolutionists may fit some
> people, not everyone who questions evolution falls into that category. There
> are those who are profoundly _skeptical_ of evolution for scientific reasons,
> and they are following to the best traditions of science.
True, but the siscussion wasn't about all who question evolution. It was about
those like H. Morris who proclaim "the twilight of evolution" as a fact.
>
> <<& of course there are _some_ discrepancies & problems>>
>
> You understate the discrepancies and problems.
I didn't mean to suggest that the problems (origin of life &c) are minor.
>
> <<because both theory & observation are still in process.>>
>
> I am uneasy with such a statement, George. It comes very close to "evolution
> of the gaps."
It would be if it were just a statement of faith that some abstract "evolution"
would solve all the problems. But it's a reality that we are still in the process of
finding & understanding relevant data, & that our evolutionary theories do change to try
to encompass our findings. Maybe some radical changes (ID, some qualitatively new type
of saltation analogous to quantum jumps) will be found necessary. We'll see. I am by
no means a dogmatic Darwinian, though I think he & Wallace discovered what is probably
the major factor in evolution.
> <<While scientific evidence should not be ignored in discussions with such
> folk, the most basic need is honest discussion of theological presuppositions.
> For if some one's religious beliefs precludes the possibility that evolution
> _might_ be true, scientific evidence will always be interpreted consistently
> with that view.>>
>
> You don't mean to imply, do you, that if one's theological presuppositions
> were to include the possibility that "evolution _might_ be true", he/she will
> then accept theistic evolution?
Not at all. What I meant was that if Christians recognize that evolution can be
understood within the context of a Christian doctrine of creation, they can then examine
the scientific evidence on its merits. If they reject it, it shouldn't be because they
think they have to on theological grounds.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/