On 11/30/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that we may not need to swallow the whole package, but for a
> slightly different reason. I think that some of the issues David raises are
> not addressible in science today, although they very well may be in the
> future. We need to embrace that new science when it comes and deal with the
> theology at that time. But we need to leave future issues to the future.
> "The future will take care of itself. There is enough evil for today."
> Until we know where the science is going, any attempt to do the theology
> would be premature and probably lead to incorrect conclusions.
>
This illustrates another key difference between TE gaps and ID gaps. TE gaps
are more tentative. Neither Phil, nor Francis Collins, nor myself will die
for these gaps. The gap for the human soul may be exception but better
tentative gaps include fine tuning and abiogenesis. If we find that there is
a good scientific reason for the apparently arbitrary relationships between
the force constants or a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis we have no
need to keep holding onto these "gaps".
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 30 15:50:09 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 15:50:09 EST