I've been involved in a fairly cordial discussion of creationism vs evolution - it plays out in the comments of my Darwin Day of Feb 12.
How engrossing or fascinating has it been (for me anyway- you are likely to find it boring)? I think this comic perfectly describes the situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Brian,
Great minds disagree
http://fora.tv/2007/10/11/Christopher_Hitchens_Debates_Alister_McGrath
Patrick
A disturbingly powerful argument for 'theistic evolution'!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29
Fifth link up from the bottom ("On-line video....")
P
A fellow Canadian doing a good job here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8T1_PArJY
P
An interesting journalistic overview of the creationist worldview. Not as rigorous as Collins' 'BioLogos' or Ross' 'progressive creationism', but nevertheless another attempt to show how science and faith need not be mutually exclusive...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-_rDZ76Z0
Hi Brian,
I'm still mulling over the various pathways mapped out for us by various men of science. I found myself hovering at number 2 and have been seriously challenged by our previous debate. I wonder what you think about dividing them up into a spectrum of six...
1 Ken Ham
Literal creationism
2 Hugh Ross
Progressive creationism
3 Francis Collins
Theistic evolution (BioLogos)
4 Kenneth Miller
Spiritual Darwinism
5 Stephen Jay Gould
NOMA (punctuated equilibrium)
6 Richard Dawkins
Evolutionary fundamentalism
regards,
Patrick.
B,
More from Hugh Ross, this time on
'9 objections to Christianity', dealt with in a scientific and rational manner...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ff1zF8svAY
P
1 Ken Ham
Literal creationism
As far as I know, he and his colleagues sign a statement vowing to never question scripture. I don't think they can be considered 'men of science' after making such a statement.
2 Hugh Ross
Progressive creationism
I still don't know much about this guy - when I have time, I will look at his site.
3 Francis Collins
Theistic evolution (BioLogos)
4 Kenneth Miller
Spiritual Darwinism
5 Stephen Jay Gould
NOMA (punctuated equilibrium)
6 Richard Dawkins
Evolutionary fundamentalism
You will have to explain 'evolutionary fundamentalism'.
These men all consider evolution to be the best explanation for life as we see it today and in the past (a shorter form would be to say they 'believe in evolution' but some scientists dislike the religious meaning of believe in this case).
What they believe about God is their own business and I have read Miller and Dawkins state as much. They agree that religion is not science and cannot be tested by science.
The main difference here is that Ham and the latter four (again, I don't know about Ross) agree that science CAN test specific claims a religion makes - and fall in opposing fields from the result.
NOMA and Punctuated Equilibrium are not the same thing, if you thought they were. Gould tried, and I think, failed, to make a case for Non- Overlapping Magesteria". His Punctuated Equilibrium is simply a sort of mechanism for evolution: Why do fossils show little change then suddenly new forms appear? Because evolution works best with small populations.
The best example is a mainland population that loses a few individuals to an island - a storm carries a log with a few animals on it or a bird drops a live pregnant female on the island, perhaps. That group will be more likely to evolve and change -yet, being smaller is less likely to leave fossils than the more stable, on-shore group.
For an excellent book on the subject, see if a local library has:
http://tiny.cc/AG7cq
Oh, I would argue that 'spiritual Darwinism' descriptor for Miller. So would he. He studies Darwin and Evolution, not Darwinism nor evolutionism.
My take-home message is that the latter four agree on evolution but not religion - the two are not as tightly bound as creationists seem to think.
Hi Brian,
Yes, it was just a tentative list, really. Just wondered what you thought of it. I'm especially curious to know what you make of Francis Collins' faith, and how he attempts to reconcile it with evolution. In some ways, it is he who stands in between the extreme viewpoints of Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins. Perhaps the list should be reduced to three?
I'm still very much taken with Ross' work, since he's coming from a very biblical position. Our previous discussions have definitely made me question the Ken Ham school of thought. Then again, another part sees it as secondary to the centrality of Christ. You can have Christ and be scientifically in error, but if you're wrong about Christ then no amount of science will save you!
P
Brian,
Two interesting newspaper articles about the head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/
http://www.washingtonian.com/articl
es/health/4634.html
- Patrick.
THE HISTORIC ALLIANCE
OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/christianscience.shtml
P
B
(the end of that last link!)
ce.shtml
P
I am trying to remember to use 'tinyurl.com' to make links that properly fit into comments. Please have a look -if not for me, then for any other visitors who might be interested in the links.
Post a Comment