I was reading a book today entitled Darwinism Defeated? which featured a
written debate between Phillip Johnson and Denis Lamoureaux (sp?).
Johnson held to his usual position, except for a few comments that seemed
to indicate he was vacillating from some of his ideas written in the
early 90's. In contrast, Lamoreaux holds to a "teleological evolution"
aka "evolutionary creationist" position, which seems to be nothing more
than a new name given to an old idea (theistic evolution).
A big point of tension in the debate was whether or not the idea of
evolution, in and of itself, is anti-God and anti-theistic. Johnson's
thesis was that the whole evolutionary hypothesis is automatically and
inherently atheistic. To hold to evolution is to give up on God or at
least relegate Him to the sideline or the backstage, turning Him into a
deistical being. Lamoureaux vigorously challenged this assertion. He
claimed that, while some scientists have believed this (e.g. Richard
Dawkins), it is not a logical necessity for evolution to have any
metaphysical implications one way or the other. It is strictly a
physical theory of origins, and anyone who tries to extend it to the
moral, spiritual, social, etc., realms is making a philosophical leap of
logic. This would include Johnson.
I found Lamoureaux's statements to this effect to be fascinating and
provocative. This is such a new notion to my thinking that I'm wondering
if it's a commonly held concept. I would appreciate anyone's critique of
the idea that evolution -- in and of itself -- carries no necessary
metaphysical claims either for or against God.
Steve C.
P.S. I think that Lamoureaux won the debate.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 18 2000 - 23:24:18 EDT