RE: [asa] public response

Gregory, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Even terms like science and religion are constantly being used without defining them. I believe most of the arguments and disagreements are based on people using the same terms but meaning entirely different things.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Gregory Arago
Sent: Tue 5/20/2008 8:14 AM
To: Keith Miller; AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] public response

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! <http://www.flickr.com/gift/>

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 08:47:08 2008