Re: [asa] comments on evolution and traditional Christian faith

First of all, Janice, let me note that the following statement, which you
juxtaposed with lengthy commentary about Neal Gillespie's interesting book
(which I read in graduate school and still own), is completely accurate:

"...In the late 19th century, Asa Gray defended Darwinian evolution
while expressly affirming the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds as
containing "the essentials" of Christian faith. My own view is
virtually identical with Gray's. ..." ~ Ted Davis

Nothing in Gillespie's book contradicts this. I'm not sure what you wanted
me to comment on or elaborate.

Incidentally, my own statement is based on a late work of Gray's, not an
early one: his 1880 lectures to Yale Divinity School, "Natural Science and
Religion." I have lengthy excerpts on a site accessible from my webpage.
It's not studied much by modern historians, but it's pretty darn
interesting.

Yes, Gray lamented (a) that Darwin himself did not offer a theistic
interpetation of his own theory, and (b) that evolution by natural selection
did not *require* design as a conclusion, and therefore some would then say
that there was no designer for the creation. Gray imposed a different
metaphysics on Darwin's theory. This happens all the time. Modern
physicists can accept Newtonian physics or Einsteinian relativity without
accepting the metaphysical foundations of either theory; and ongoing
disagreements about the philosophical implications of quantum theory are a
futher example.

This is what Johnson and company just don't get--that theories may come with
implicit or explicit metaphysics, but that they ain't necessarily
inseparable.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 31 19:44:20 2006