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

I understand your position here. But I simply cannot agree with it
without a rationale, which you fail to give. OTOH, the book WHEN
ELEPHANTS WEEP seems to give reasonable counter evidences.

jb

On 2/18/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree that creatures other than humans (except perhaps angels) can
> "love." Yes, other creatures can exhibit altruism and selflessness, but
> that alone isn't "love."
>
> Take, for example, the classic "love" passage of 1 Corinthians 13, and focus
> on verses 12 and 13: <em>"Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with
> the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always
> perseveres."</em>
>
> These notions of "evil," "truth," "trust," "hope," and "persevere" are
> foreign to creatures other than humans (and perhaps angels). They imply
> moral and relational aspects that other creatures either do not possess at
> all or possess in such vastly smaller amounts as to be different in kind
> than those possessed by humans. I would suggest that they are involved in
> the <em>imago dei</em> itself.
>
> In responst to Rich Blinne -- I am not suggesting that any of these means we
> can "detect" God's design in nature by empirical means. An argument from
> the <em>analogia entis</em> is inadequate without the <em>analogia
> fidei</em>. BTW, a very nice discussion of the analogies of being and
> faith, not really relating to ID, is here:
> http://millinerd.com/2006/12/whos-afraid-of-analogia-entis.html
>
> On Feb 18, 2008 4:40 PM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "But I would argue that the human capacity here is qualitatively and
> > quantitatively on a dramatically different level than that of even the
> > most intelligent non-human creatures (of which we are aware)."
> >
> > I understand what you are saying. We can agree on the "quantitatively"
> > part (although my lab exhibits quite a bit more "forgiveness and love"
> > than his human master <G>)
> >
> > We appear to disagree on the "qualitatively" part. What specific
> > attribute do humans have that no other species have? It is not
> > aesthetics, nor altruism, nor love (not even agape love). Nor speech,
> > nor tool-making, etc. etc. Actually, I can think of none. Perhaps you
> > can. If you cannot, how then would you argue your "qualitatively"
> > claim?
> >
> > Burgy
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 19 16:09:27 2008