|
Post by turoldus on Jul 8, 2009 16:20:41 GMT
No we don't have to choose between them, but the term "theistic evolution" seems to make God a part of scientific methodology, to make God an explanation of how evolution happens. Of course, God has a role in evolution, but it's the same role that God plays in everything else--the continually creating theist's God, not the God who winds up the universe and lets it run. This is a causality with which science does not deal. The Scholastics called it "primary causality." "Secondary causality" is the action of parts of the universe on each other, which is where science reasons and explains. Of course, one can believe that secondary causes don't add up to an explanation at all in the case of evolution and that God must be acting in a more direct way than as primary cause. That would be theistic evolution, and I guess it would not be a contradiction in its own field, but that field wouldn't be science. The trouble with the term "theistic evolution" is that it sounds like a distinct scientific theory that theists would hold and atheists wouldn't. If it doesn't sound that way to you, then our difference may be just a matter of terminology. Theistic evolutionism as I see it is not a scientific theory but just the idea that God and evolution are compatible and don't disprove each other. It's worth pointing out that none of the proponents of TE are trying to have their ideas taught in classrooms or published in peer-reviewed journals, unlike IDers. The dispute between TE and NAs like Coyne and Moran bears on interpretation, not on the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Jul 8, 2009 20:19:10 GMT
Theistic evolutionism as I see it is not a scientific theory but just the idea that God and evolution are compatible and don't disprove each other. Exactly, it is a philosophical view, not a scientific one.
|
|
|
Post by knowingthomas on Jul 20, 2009 4:06:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jul 20, 2009 8:58:54 GMT
Oh dear. Right from the first sentence, the cringeworthy statements start - it now seems that "creationism" (with the connotations and loading that come with it) actually means "theism".
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jul 20, 2009 9:06:34 GMT
I read Pharingula (P Z Myers) and Why Evolution is True (Jerry Coyne) but I ignore Sandwalk (Larry Moran) as I find it to be mainly drivel. It's also far too Gouldian for my taste.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 22, 2009 1:41:57 GMT
I read Pharingula (P Z Myers) and Why Evolution is True (Jerry Coyne) but I ignore Sandwalk (Larry Moran) as I find it to be mainly drivel. It's also far too Gouldian for my taste. I have only read a little of Pharingula, but I can't think it deserves a rating much higher than "drivel". When people, either atheists or christians, become so "fundamentalist" that they demonise viewpoints opposed to their own and refuse to see any merit in them or the people holding them, despite the fact that the issues are very complex and clever people hold views across the spectrum, then they tend to over-simplify the issues so much that what they say tends to have little value. Despite being clever enough to be a professor (or whatever he is), Myers seems to consistently fall into this trap. I don't think I've ever learnt anything from him apart from the above assessment. "Drivel" is probably a bit harsh and unkind, but "worthless ranting" is probably close and fair.
|
|