Re: It's the Bible or evolution

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 22:32:34 EDT

Cornelius,
    I think this is a very pertinent paragraph in the sense of understanding
the fundamental difference between ID and TE. Do I understand the issue
correctly as follows?

ID perspective:
        In common usage among scientists and laity, evolution refers to the
development of species through random, purposeless, unguided events rather
than by any type of divine action. As such, evolution is inherently
antithetical to any orthodox view of creation. In response to the specific
retort of TE folks that that this combines a metaphysical interpretation of
meaning and guidance (or the lack thereof) with the science and is not truly
core scientific evolution, the ID community responds, "indeed, but that's
just the point--scientists have combined scientific and metaphysical views
into a single concept called evolution and that is what we oppose."

TE perspective:
        The "common usage" is wrong and evolution can and should be divorced
from the "random, purposeless, unguided.." metaphysical interpretation.
Then it can be possible to harmonize with various views of creation. In
response to the specific retort of ID that this is not how evolution is
discussed and taught in practice, the TE community responds "indeed, but
that's just the point--evolution is too commonly taught with a metaphysical
atheistic flavor and we should oppose that error rather than agree with the
fusion and oppose evolution altogether."

So I do think you are correct that many people (though not all!) use "common
descent" and "evolution" to mean "as opposed to any divine influence". The
ID community chooses to accept the definition and fight the terms while the
TE community chooses to accept the terms and fight the definition.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cornelius Hunter" <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
To: <kbmill@ksu.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: It's the Bible or evolution

>
> Clearly there is a conflict between evolution and orthodoxy, so I don't
> think that the conflict view is "simply false." A way to avoid this would
> be to remake the theory of evolution such that it is considered to be
> merely God's deterministic creation tool, but of course this is not
> evolution as we know it. The point is not whether common descent or
> evolution, *per se* can be viewed as orthodox. Of course they can when the
> additional evolutionary thinking is not attached. But this is not what is
> meant by these terms. Common descent and evolution are used to refer to
> the idea that there is a break in the link between God and creation, such
> that designs in creation do not represent divine will. How can this be
> orthodox?
>
> --Cornelius
>
>
Received on Mon Sep 26 22:35:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 26 2005 - 22:35:04 EDT