Does this mean that 'theistic evolution' is likewise not a 'scientific conclusion,' but rather philosophy and theology? In your opinion is theistic evolution a mix of science, theology and philosophy, whose main purpose is to combat the (American-Western) 'warfare model' of 'science and religion' and/or to make sense of the truth(s) of human and world history? What would then happen if 'evolutionary philosophy' is (shown to be) fundamentally contradictory to theism, even anti-theistic - would this undermine the theistic evolution perspective? Why isn't it called theistic-philosophical evolution or philosophical-theistic evolution if it really does involve philosophy? Please excuse if these questions do not properly apply to the 'continuous creation' position.
G.A.
Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
My view of continuous creation that sees God actively involved in
natural processes, including biological evolution, is NOT a
scientific conclusion. It is NOT science -- it is philosophy and
theology.
Keith
---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 20 08:15:08 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 20 2008 - 08:15:08 EDT