Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Since when did 'love-of-wisdom' (philosophy) become unimportant to 'science and religion' dialogue?
   
  Second paragraph below rewritten in short: "is (natural-physical) history random"?

  G.A.
   
  p.s. I have noted 'neo-Darwinism's' ambiguity too; no thanks for the nod.
  p.p.s. 'biological evolution' and 'theological understanding' as the 'real issue'; but to the exclusion of all others, including physics, anthropology, sociology, etc.? If so, then yes, this seems to be a deep problem for the TE/EC position to me...
   
  
George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
            I come in rather late on this thread to comment on 3 points. 1st, especially in view of the ambiguity of the term that Randy & David note, the question of whether or not Randy's (or anyone else's) view is "neo-Darwinian" is of very little importance. The critical questions have to do with our theological understandings of divine action, scientific (not philosophical) understandings of biological evolution, and the correlation between them.
   
  2d, I question whether anyone can show scientifically (& not just assert) that the process that has gotten us to our present state as Homo sapiens from the time that our ancestral line diverged from that of apes has actually been "random" in any technical sense - e.g., that critical mutations have statistically quite unremarkable. The lack of detailed genomes of our ancestral species for the past few Myr would make that difficult, to say the least.
   
  Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

       
 
              
---------------------------------
    
       
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 Mon Feb 18 07:02:14 2008