Re: Corrected Insert

George Murphy (
Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:17:12 -0500

John W. Burgeson wrote:
> kbmill questioned as follows: "How is evolution "controversial"? How do
> you define controversial? To whom is it controversial? It is certainly
> not controversial within the scientific community. "
> My guess is that you were trying to be a bit sarcastic here. That is hard
> to do on this LISTSERV medium, of course.
> The "community" here, of course, is not the "scientific community."
> The people concerned with it very likely associate the neutral word
> "evolution" with the definition "Chemicals to humanity via undirected
> accident." As long as Gould, Dawkins and company continue defining it
> that way, some counter to their philosophies needs to be said.

The attitude of caution about evolution expressed in the
Alabama insert is something that Christians could appreciate and endorse
- in 1897! A century ago it would have made sense to warn people about
the uncertainties of evolution simply as a tactical matter, _while doing
serious theological work to understand & express evolution in a sound
Christian context_. But it is 1997, not 1897, & the tragedy is that so
many Christians are still looking for excuses to dismiss evolution, &
have not even begun to do the theoloical work which is necessary.
A good exercise for anti-evolutionists would be to assume for
the sake of argument that scientific evidence overall supports evolution
("macroevolution" if you wish) & try to understand how it might be
compatible with the Bible & ecumenical creeds. If they honestly try
this, I think they will be surprised.
(Some will be tempted to counter that supporters of evolution
ought to try try the converse exercise. Many of us grew up doing that &
eventually found it barren.)
George Murphy