Re: [asa] Re: ASA Whitepaper?

Do you mean this Donald MacKay?

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1983/JASA12-83Haas.html

Took me a few googles to find anyone who might fit the subject of
science and theology.

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> David O wrote:
> "So Randy, what is your theological take on all this?"
>
> My take? Ok, but first the disclaimer that, as usual, the following doesn't represent an ASA position, just my own personal thoughts.
>
> The fossil data are very convincing. The trail of fossils from a very ape-like species nearly 6 Mya to modern humans at 80 kya with the intermediate transition forms having increasingly more human features and less ape-like feature is really solid evidence for an evolutionary origin for humans from a common ancestor with apes, anatomically speaking. We may not know the full spectrum of processes and mechanisms that underlie this evolutionary change but the vast array of known mechanisms for genetic and epigenetic variation coupled with natural, sexual, cultural and other types of selection come very close to explaining this sequence. What we can't determine from the fossil record are the origins of consciousness and spirituality. We might make some inferences from remnants of behavior but that doesn't resolve the core mechanisms.
>
> There are many fascinating scientific questions to be studied. The role of climate change is a big one as well as changes in diet and food sources. The details of human dispersion are also of major interest.
> The much smaller diversity of genetics in humans compared with chimpanzees seems to concord with the view that all extant humans have a common recent origin, namely a population of maybe 10,000 in Africa around 120 kya. Detailed mutation tracking by the National Geographic geneographical project seems to confirm that.
>
> The theological questions are of two main types. One is more philosophical.
> Is there evidence for teleology? For dysteleology? For guidance from extrinsic sources? Etc. I think not, at least from physical evidence alone.
>
> The second type is biblical hermeneutics.
> Many of these derive from a quest for concordance of some degree between the scientific story above and the biblical account. My own preference is to follow Donald MacKay and his levels of complementarity. The scientific and biblical accounts are both true but describe the origin of humans at a different level of meaning. The biblical account teaches who created us and our accountability and sinful nature, etc. In telling that story, the Bible incorporates a wide range of input, including historical people and events, ancient scientific perspectives, and even mythical elements. Sorting out which is which may or may not be possible but, in any case, doing so does not seem to me to provide muh benefit. Would any knowledge of this kind reveal a previously unknown spiritual truth? Would it in any way lend credence or lack thereof to the inspiration of the Bible? I don't think so.
>
> I know this isn't satisfactory to many and I keep seeking. But for now, that's where I'm at.
>
> Randy
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 16 18:48:08 2009