Re: [asa] public response

Gregory:

> 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.

Of course theistic evolution is philosophy/theology. Again, we are
all engaged in constructing a comprehensive and integrated
understanding of reality (both physical and spiritual). Any of these
various views incorporate scientific insight and understanding, but
they transcend it. I have no idea what you mean by "evolutionary
philosophy" since it could mean just about anything. But any
philosophical/theological argument must stand or fall on its own
grounds. That also means that a philosophical/theological position
that is dependent on a false understanding of the natural world
cannot be sustained.

Keith

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 13:16:35 2008