Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Wed Oct 07 2009 - 18:07:13 EDT

> He says that we don't know of any other mechanism to produce life as we see
> it so evolution must be true.


This is called "naturalism of the gaps".

Dave C

I remarked to a friend the other day, "I believe rust is a process of
spontaneously going from a state of a certain (low) entropy to a state of
slightly higher entropy. I call that "evolution" (its a change)."

This was meant as a jest, but I don't know why it couldn't be serious.

This type of evolution of course has nothing to do with biological evolution
and it also has nothing to do with Polkinghorne and Beales proposed
"non-biological evolution of the mind". The point I am trying to make is
one always has to define what one means by evolution in a specific context.
When one fails to do this the term can be used absolutely everywhere to mean
almost anything. When you have a gap it (evolution or perhaps naturalistic
evolution a la Nancy Pearcey) is the most convenient explanation ever
invented. What it really means is "We know God is not the final cause
because He isn't allowed." That is the non-Christian-naturalism being
invoked. Please note it is as anti-TE as it is anti-anything-theistic. And
it is not even a scientific statement if one posits that science is an
evaluation of knowledge as opposed to an evaluation of a lack of knowledge.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 7 18:09:52 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 07 2009 - 18:09:52 EDT