Re: Cambrian Explosion

From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 16:56:33 EDT

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Sin?"

    Josh & Richard,

    Our conversation is degenerating into a shouting match. You've had the last
    shout re the details, and that's OK with me.

    We do have substantive theological differences, and that is unlikely to
    change. I am inclined toward naturalistic theism, which entails RFEP in both
    the physical and biological arenas. You, on the other hand, are committed to
    supernatural theism, which welcomes ID and other approaches that portray at
    least some of God's creative work in the vocabulary of supernatural
    interventions that compensate for formational capabilities (like those for
    biogenesis or for the formation of the bacterial flagellum, for instance)
    not given to the Creation at the beginning. [Richard: "The miracle of God's
    creation of DNA is that it is adaptive, though I doubt it could "adapt" to
    the point of creation of new irreducibly complex organs." That strikes me as
    a very delicate balance to try to maintain. DNA is wonderfully adaptive,
    which brings glory to God as its Creator; but not so wonderfully adaptive as
    to make form-conferring intervention unnecessary.]

    You are content with picturing God giving being to a universe that is
    cosmologically fine tuned but not biologically fine tuned. You are correct
    to point out that such a choice is logically permitted, but nonetheless I am
    more comfortable with the consistency of fine tuning in both. [By the way,
    fine tuning is not something done in the course of time (within a universe
    that already exists); it is in the selection of properties to be manifest in
    the nature of the universe at all times.]

    Howard Van Till



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 16:58:14 EDT