Re: [asa] Taggle? (was: What Darwin Didn't Know - Dr. Fuz Rana)

> with the label altogether, I would rather be a "Liar for Jesus" than a "Liar
> for Darwin". Because that's what you and your TE brethren are, based on my
> readings in "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" - so far...Russell's work
> included.

"Perspectives on an Evolving Creation", while being a good resource on
TE, is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the full range
of TE positions. Thus, drawing a conclusion about all TE based on it
is unjustified.

If you do find errors in my chapter, let me know and I can try to fix
them. Keith helped, but I didn't have great library access at the
time I was working on it.

"for Darwin" has two significant problems with it. First, although he
did a good job of getting the ball rolling with evolution, much has
been learned since then. "for evolution" would be more appropriate
than "for Darwin". Much more importantly, few if any of those who are
properly classified as supporting theistic [rather than deistic s.l.]
evolution are really for Darwin or evolution. Rather, it is a matter
of being for honesty and good quality in science (and in theology and
exegesis, for that matter). If the scientific data support and
extensive role for evolution in the creation of living organisms, we
should admit it and deal with it. However, we shouldn't put much
theological importance on the latest scientific models, even if they
seem to be very well supported, because theology deals primarily with
who and why and science with what and how. It doesn't make much
difference theologically exactly when and how God created, as long as
we keep in mind that He did it.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.