Re: [asa] How big a deal is homology?

*On the other hand, TE and progressive creation is distinguishable via
science. This means that the issue between the two is a scientific rather
than a theological question.*

But is it really? Science assumes evolution must have proceeded for the
most part through the gradual accretion of changes, and not through any
tinkering by God, *because God is methodologically excluded from Science*.
Science therefore can't distinguish between TE and progressive creation,
unless "distinguish" means "assume there is no God...." (or unless
"progressive creation" means radical discontinuity between "kinds" -- not
something more sophisticated ID / progressive creationists would necessarily
hold).

I'm not suggesting here that Science should do otherwise -- only that laying
out the facts of how organisms and genes change over time, and how life is
all related, won't and can't settle the general question as between TE and
progressive creation.

Maybe put it another way: ordinary evolution is the simplest and most
consistent explanation of the sorts of data Collins presents -- if, and only
if, there is no theological reason to presume discrete acts of special
creation. If there is a theological reason to presume discrete acts of
special creation, that throws an epistemic monkey wrench into things, which
Science is unable to handle. (I'm not, BTW, trying to suggest here
that there is or isn't such a theological reason -- only sussing out what I
see as the really key issues).

On 3/28/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/28/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, given that theology is neutral to progressive creation vs. creation
by
> evolution, then the answer is determined what does the non-theological
> evidence point to and for that it is abundantly on the latter.
> >
> > Right -- if that "given" about theology is really "given." This is also
> what I was trying to get at regarding Collins' evidence for evolution. I
> don't think it's enough to make the scientific case. This also relates to
> one of Iaian's comments about God of the gaps.
> >
>
> I think what unnecessarily complicates this is the desire to make an
> apologetics case out of science. Collins makes a sufficient case for
> evolution because evolution is by definition a natural explanation of
> natural effects. Since ID is by its nature does make an apologetics case
> then the response is what does TE do to do the analogous. The answer is
> nothing as the science cannot distinguish between TE and atheistic
> evolution. This is a theological issue. On the other hand, TE and
> progressive creation is distinguishable via science. This means that the
> issue between the two is a scientific rather than a theological question.
> So, if science concludes -- and I believe rightly -- that evolution rather
> than progressive creation is true then it doesn't disprove Christianity.
TE
> removes an objection to Christianity but it's a mistake to make it into a
> positive support for it. That has to come from elsewhere.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 28 14:39:18 2007