Although, along with others, I find the discussion very interesting, it doesn't seem to be 'on topic.' According to my calculation, only 2 (including mine) out of 27 posts in response to Randy's thread titled 'Neo-Darwinism and God's action' have mentioned the name Darwin or addressed the meaning of 'neo-Darwinism' which Logan Gage specifically critiques. What are 'theistic Darwinists' and is the term a contradiction? My question remains: Are TE/EC's trying to change the scientific definition of 'neo-Darwinism' (and its evolution-ism) to suit their particular theological position? If so, it doesn't appear to be working, but instead rather evasive of the genuine problems.
In the sense that divine guidance can be said to be a kind of 'relative' non-randomness, Gage is justified. The 'evidence' (a word Gage didn't use) for it is another story, one that ASA is losing in the telling or unintentinally avoiding by non-participation in comparison with places like the DI and the Edge. Talk Teilhard de Chardin, Whitehead, Dobzhansky, Fisher or only Behe; TE/EC is still walking a fine line trying to balance things that don't seem balanceable.
G.A.
Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
Jack Haas just drew my attention to Logan Gage's response to my letter in the Jan 2008 issue of CT. I would greatly appreciate your views on the last two paragraphs of his article. We have touched on randomness several times in this forum and I believe it continues to be one of the fundamental questions. Logan seems to believe that if there is divine guidance there will necessarily be evidence of non-randomness. Or have I misunderstood him?
Randy
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 16 07:48:55 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 16 2008 - 07:48:55 EST