First Things published an interview with Keller this morning re: his book.
(See: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=981). Not sure we should
really call him TE (He personally disavows the term - includes TE as one of
the options with "insurmountable difficulties"). He says (highlights added
by myself):
At the same time, if you say, "There is no God and everything happened by
> evolution," naturalistic evolution—*then you have "theistic evolution":
> God just started things years ago and everything has come into being through
> the process of evolution.* You have young-Earth six-day creationism, which
> is "God created everything in six 24-hour days." To me, all three of those
> positions have perhaps insurmountable difficulties.
>
Looks like it is the whole divine action issue that is confusing him -
either God did it or evolution did it. This isn't surprising since many of
us that hold to a TE / EC view have difficulty articulating it clearly (I
do) even if we aren't confused ourselves (don't think I am :-) ).
Again, the important point is that Keller reiterates that these "origins
issues" are red herrings & that he can accept those with TE / EC views as
orthodox believers. It's an important first step.
thanks,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> Among Rich Blinne's point is this one:
> Keller mentions with approval of Francis Collins in the main text. He
> also
> responds to
> Dawkins' citation of a survey where 7% of the NAS are believers with
> the survey published in Nature showing a much greater number of
> scientists who are believers.
>
> Ted hopes to illuminate this point.
> Dawkins, I assume was citing the same survey that Keller also cites.
> Results appeared both in Nature and in Scientific American. The authors,
> Larry Witham and Edward Larson, repeated the famous survey of the
> religious
> beliefs of American scientists that had been carried out by atheist
> psychologist James Leuba in 1914. They used exactly the same instrument,
> and the same reference set: Members of the AAAS, who are listed in
> "American
> Men and Women of Science." They polled two groups: regular members, plus
> members of the NAS. Leuba did not poll NAS members per se, although the
> NAS
> did exist then (it was founded during the Civil War to help the Union
> cause). Rather, Leuba polled "starred" scientists listed in what was then
> called "American Men of Science." The star system was discontinued about
> 30
> years later, but at that time the most "eminent" scientists had asterisks
> next to their names in "American Men of Science." (Incidentally, until
> relatively recently, the word "scientist," which was coined in the 1830s,
> was not much used. You were a "man of science," and indeed most of those
> men were in fact men. There was no term "woman of science," as far as I
> know. Virtually all of the "starred" scientists were men.) I won't go
> further into the story of the star system, but it's a real hoot.
>
> So, what Larson & Witham found was, that from the general group of AAAS
> members, 39.3% affirmed belief in a personal God, as vs 41.8% in Leuba's
> survey. This contradicts Leuba's personal expectation and hope that, as
> science advanced in the 20th century, religious belief would decline
> markedly. On the other hand, Lebua found that among "elite" (ie, starred)
> scientists, 27.7% believed in God. Larson & Witham found just 7.0% among
> the NAS members. (Interestingly, among mathematicians in the NAS, the
> figure doubles to 14.3%, which is consistent with the fact that more
> mathematicians from the general AAAS group are also believers (it's nearly
> half). No surprise to me, given the transcendental character of
> mathematical truths.)
>
> Here's some of the data I refer to:
>
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm<http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/sci_relig.htm>
>
> So, Dawkins and Keller were citing the same survey.
>
> Ted
>
-- -- Steve Martin (CSCA) http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.Received on Mon Feb 25 13:52:32 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 25 2008 - 13:52:32 EST