Re: [asa] Interview with Denis Lamoureux

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Mon Jun 08 2009 - 18:55:09 EDT

Schwarzwald wrote;

> I ask this because, frankly, I've seen people argue that what seems to
> be your own position (evolution is guided) is a rejection of evolution
> itself on the grounds that a key principle of evolution IS that it's
> unguided.

This is a pretty pertinent point for me right now.

I've been playing around doing Wikipedia edits of late, and have discovered just how difficult it is to convince evolutionist of the scientific materialist sort that Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is an argument _against Naturalism_ and not an argument _against evolution_.

It seems that they simply can't get over the conviction that an argument against naturalism IS an argument against evolution.

It makes me wonder if the are simply paying lip-service to the idea that Theistic Evolution is an even remotely a valid position. After all, consistency would seem to demand that they CAN'T allow divine guidance/intervention/whatever in a process which theys seem to think is naturalistic by definition.

On those grounds, TE has to be self-referentially incoherent.

I think I'm beginning to see that it's the unassailable assumption of naturalism which leads Dawkins et al to puzzle over how somebody like Francis Collins can claim to accept evolution and still believe in God. Understanding a bit more about where Dawkins sits I can increasingly see why he simply can't get his head around the idea that science and Christian belief might be the least bit compatible.

Blessings,
Murray

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 8 18:55:45 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 08 2009 - 18:55:45 EDT