ASA - February 1999: Destiny or Creativity

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BE5865.6E41CDA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here's a recent "New Scientist" article which should give us pause for =
thought as believers in the Creator:

Based on recent work with bacteria it describes various factors that =
seemingly DETERMINE how life will evolve. New niches becoming available =
seem to act as species generators, allowing an ancestral form to =
diversify rapidly. Neo-Darwinian dogma seems to demand a certain =
randomness and uncertainty to the process of evolution, without any =
teleological hint of "goal" or "purpose". In many situations this =
actually makes sense of the biological data, such as the seemingly ad =
hoc modifications of organs that show how evolution minimalistically =
builds on the past. However perhaps other modes of evolution can make =
sense of such data without the need for metaphysical digressions into =
the "meaninglessness and purposelessness" of evolution. In the lives of =
animals I dare say there's more purpose and meaning than Darwinian =
biologists seem to allow into the process. New niches aren't exploited =
unless pioneers venture forth and adapt to their new homes, though for =
simpler lifeforms it's air and water currents that carry them far =
afield. What's God's role in all this? How many on this list still agree =
with Descartes and consider all animals to be soulless automatons? I =
would argue strongly that such anthropocentric prejudice is =
non-Biblical, since the Spirit of Life gives life to all flesh.

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BE5865.6E41CDA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Based on recent work with bacteria it = describes=20 various factors that seemingly DETERMINE how life will evolve. New = niches=20 becoming available seem to act as species generators, allowing an = ancestral form=20 to diversify rapidly. Neo-Darwinian dogma seems to demand a certain = randomness=20 and uncertainty to the process of evolution, without any teleological = hint of=20 "goal" or "purpose". In many situations this = actually makes=20 sense of the biological data, such as the seemingly ad hoc modifications = of=20 organs that show how evolution minimalistically builds on the past. = However=20 perhaps other modes of evolution can make sense of such data without the = need=20 for metaphysical digressions into the "meaninglessness and=20 purposelessness" of evolution. In the lives of animals I dare say = there's=20 more purpose and meaning than Darwinian biologists seem to allow into = the=20 process. New niches aren't exploited unless pioneers venture forth and = adapt to=20 their new homes, though for simpler lifeforms it's air and water = currents that=20 carry them far afield. What's God's role in all this? How many on this = list=20 still agree with Descartes and consider all animals to be soulless = automatons? I=20 would argue strongly that such anthropocentric prejudice is = non-Biblical, since=20 the Spirit of Life gives life to all flesh.