Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Date: Sun May 31 2009 - 17:37:13 EDT

Terry and Allan,
  Both of you did an excellent job in articulating the issues and
distinctions. Somehow, nuanced and slightly modified definitions of
"evolution" and "common descent" and "natural" and similar terms have led to
significant confusion. It seems that the scientific theory of evolution as I
think it is understood by most scientists is not compatible with ID. The
compatibility claimed by Behe, et. al., and concurred by Ted, seems to exist
only with a qualifier that limits the definition of evolution.

  Maybe a way to clarify the distinction would be to try this for an
explanation of what the typical scientist understands by the "scientific
theory of evolution." Namely, the spectrum of naturally occurring variation
in living organisms, coupled with the resulting differential reproductive
success, is sufficient and adequate to explain the development of all past
and extant species on earth from one or more initial forms of life. No
appeal to esoteric processes is necessary. Neither the absence nor presence
of metaphysical intent or influence is indicated or precluded by this basic
perspective.

 When understood in this way, would an ID advocate continue to say that ID
is entirely compatible with evolution? I suspect many people believe that
the scientific view as expressed above necessarily entails the absence of
divine purpose and that the scientific theory cannot be decoupled from such
an implication. That may be where the conflict lies.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 31 17:37:20 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 31 2009 - 17:37:20 EDT