tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post1195859059418857709..comments2023-10-28T03:26:35.948-05:00Comments on Catholic in the Third Millennium: Darwin's Pope?Dan Dunlaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-37493804925847225452007-06-11T14:22:00.000-05:002007-06-11T14:22:00.000-05:00The Christian/evolution debate always seems to foc...The Christian/evolution debate always seems to focus on the area of creation and origins. And much of the time it is reasoned that God and evolution is compatible. Fine. But I have never heard an in-depth discussion of the moral implications that a "God and evolution" position would have. It seems to me that if God used evolution to create man then all those things that are presented in Genesis as consequences of the fall (death, killing for survival, etc.) are attributable to God's creation because they were in existence prior. Does it not confound the problem of evil and make God responsible because these consequences are no longer the result of man's free will but are there as the result of a created evolutionary process?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-5975320895154594422007-05-31T15:46:00.000-05:002007-05-31T15:46:00.000-05:00Thanks for the lead on Swinburne's book. How go t...Thanks for the lead on Swinburne's book. How go things in your life these days? Write me off list.Dan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-37773274671747324312007-05-31T14:07:00.000-05:002007-05-31T14:07:00.000-05:00Richard Swinburne, the Orthodox Oxford philosopher...Richard Swinburne, the Orthodox Oxford philosopher of science, has a fascinating chapter in the second edition of his 'The Existence of God' where he argues against ID, in part, on the grounds that irreducible complexity would reduce the likelihood that the creator of biological life on Earth is at the same time the creator of the <BR/>Universe; and conversely, that if the Universe is “fine-tuned” in such a way as to inevitably produce biological life – which, some say, it must be, then such an identification is more probable.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14449969414952273164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-60280295838667258542007-05-31T12:31:00.000-05:002007-05-31T12:31:00.000-05:00Thanks, Thomas. I have to admit that I am a Ken M...Thanks, Thomas. I have to admit that I am a Ken Miller fan. His book "Finding Darwin's God" is a must read.<BR/><BR/>I love your last paragraph. It says it all.<BR/><BR/>DanDan Dunlaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15610718122774026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25190947.post-78694888193046569912007-05-31T09:55:00.000-05:002007-05-31T09:55:00.000-05:00Dr. D.,Happy to have you back.This is an excellent...Dr. D.,<BR/><BR/>Happy to have you back.<BR/><BR/>This is an excellent article. It sets forth what I think is the most acceptable account of the relationship between evolutionary science and Christian theism. <BR/><BR/>The best line is: “But Gould, like many in science, seriously underestimated the philosophical depth of religious thought.”<BR/><BR/>One point, I think assumed, but not expressed in the article is the fundamental analogy between Providence on the one hand and Production on the other. Aquinas denied that efficient causality is a univocal description of the cause of Creation. Philosophy is not equipped to illuminate the mode of the origination of finite being and so relies – as ultimately all thought – upon analogical expressions. Similarly, the creative operation (‘energy’ if you like) behind evolution is not subject to the analysis of mathematical-physics. We may speak of ‘cause,’ ‘design,’ and ‘purpose’ meaningfully, but not in such a way as to make these phenomena meet the empirical criteria of experimental physics - precisely because such judgments are meta-physical and ultimately theological. <BR/><BR/>In other words, science may be blind to the presence of God in nature, but the scientist – in so far as he is a man – is not.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14449969414952273164noreply@blogger.com