Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

Hi Moorad:

You quoted Peacocke and then wrote: "Is that not equating evolution as
an agency to God?"

Generally, no. I mostly agree with what Peacocke wrote there. It may
be possible that you are seeing the phrase "...Evolution enriches our
insights into the nature and purposes of the divine creation -- its
fecundity ... " differently than I read it. I think Peacocke did not
mean the "its" in that phrase to refer to evolution, for if he did
your point is correct, but, rather, to refer to the words "divine
creation." If this is true, then he is not describing evolution as an
agency; if you are correct, he is.

Perhaps we could agree that Peacocke could have been more precise in the above.

Burgy

On 8/1/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> Here is what Arthur Peacocke wrote, "I find the epic of evolution, from the
> 'Hot Big Bang' to Homo sapiens, an illumination of how the Creator God is
> and has been creating. Evolution enriches our insights into the nature and
> purposes of the divine creation -- its fecundity, variety, its ability to
> manifest an increase in complexity to the point where the physical stuff of
> the world acquires the (holistic) capacity to be self-conscious, to think
> (in 'mental' activity), to instantiate values and to relate to its Creator
> (in 'spiritual' activity). I regard God as creating in, with, and through
> the natural as unveiled by the sciences; hence I espouse a 'theistic
> naturalism.'"
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_03.html
>
>
>
> Is that not equating evolution as an agency to God?
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: j burg [mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com]
> Sent: Fri 8/1/2008 10:41 AM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for
> Gregory)
>
>
>
> On 7/31/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>> I am going to say something right off the top of my head. I
>> will take you post and just make some minor changes and it makes just as
>> make sense, if not even more, than what you wrote.
>> -------------------
>>
>> You know, God (evolution) doesn't just create good things. He (It) creates
>> even more mutants, retards, etc. than He (it) does something better. So
>> an
>> example of something going downward (in behavior, thought, etc.) doesn't
>> disprove the actions of God (evolution) in society.
>>
>
> I see where you are coming from. The above assumes "evolution" refers
> to an agency, rather than a descriptor.
>
> Let me try this one. Substitute "gravity"
>
>> You know, gravity doesn't just create good things. Gravity creates
>> even more acccidents, deaths, etc. than it does something better. So an
>> example of something going downward doesn't
>> disprove the actions of gravity in our everyday life.
>
> Here I am using the word "gravity" as an agent.
>
> So much of the dialog on this list seems to center on word
> definitions. I think Bacon was the guy who once wrote that when two
> learned people disagree, it is almost always over word definitions!
>
> "Gravity" is, of course, not an agent; it is (apparently) just the
> result of living in a universe where mass attracts mass. Which in turn
> is the result of living in a curved universe. Which in turn ... .
>
> jb
>
>
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.