R
reggieM
Guest
I’d be glad to help you through the logic of my post if you’re interested.
- Status
L
liquidpele
Guest
Hmm… the comment messed up and made it look like I was replying to you instead of StAnastasia… I was merely tying into his comment.
R
reggieM
Guest
OK, I missed the quote tag at the bottom. So, my comment is more correctly directed at him.
He praised the work of ISSR. I then quoted from a scientist from that group, Owen Gingerich. He then ridiculed Gingerich’s idea regarding “theistic evolution” by claiming that there was an equivalent notion of “theistic gravity” posed (by scientists of the ISSR)?
So, StAnastasia is contradicting and ridiculing himself in this case.
I’ll suggest that it’s a problem that occurs when trying to argue using sound-bytes or cutesy come-backs rather than reading what the post (in this case, mine) actually says.
I’ll suggest also that while you might be trying to ridicule StAnastasia’s opinions by posting stories from the Onion – that’s probably not going to help him very much. But then again, he might see the problem with his view more clearly that way – as I think some people do.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
(1) ISSR members are not free to try to “kick out” their colleagues.
(2) I don’t recall ridiculing Owen Gingerich, who happens to be a friend as well as a colleague whom I greatly respect.
(3) It happens to be true that no Catholic can be an atheist and accept the theory of gravity, any more than she can be an atheist and accept the theory of evolution. Can you understand this?
StAnastasia
R
reggieM
Guest
Do you respect his idea that there are two kinds of evolution? Perhaps you should ask him if he thinks there is a “theistic gravity” also.
(3) It happens to be true that no Catholic can be an atheist and accept the theory of gravity, any more than she can be an atheist and accept the theory of evolution. Can you understand this?
I can understand why you want to change the topic – yes, very much.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
There is only one kind of biological evolution. How one views and interprets it depends on whether one’s perspective is that of a theist, nontheist, or agnostic.
There is only one kind of gravitation. How one views and interprets it depends on whether one’s perspective is that of a theist, nontheist, or agnostic.
R
reggieM
Guest
I asked you to provide a reference explaining the term “theistic gravity” but you haven’t done that yet. Prof. Gingerich gave a detailed explanation on the difference between “theistic evolution” and “atheistic evolution” – so, no – your claim that there is only “one kind of evolution” does not line up with what can easily be seen.
The term “evolution” refers equally to proposed mechanisms, theories and “perspectives”.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
“Theistic gravity” = the theological perspective that God has established the universe such that any two bodies attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
“Theistic evolution” = the theological perspective that God has established the universe such that life unfold, diversifies, and complexifies through biological evolution.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Oh this looks fun…
“unicornistic evolution” = the theological perspective that unicorns are everywhere and use their horns to cause diversities and mutations for diversity of life.
“FSM Evolution” = the theological perspective that we don’t evolve, it was made to look that way when we were created 5 minutes ago with our memories of the paste intact.
etc etc.
We can come up with thousands of hypotheticals ranging from interesting to absurd. I agree that there is only one actual type of evolution. Things change, and from actual studies done the changes we’ve seen look like random mutation. Now, you can attribute whatever hypotheticals you want to what caused the mutations and why they look random, as I’m sure many will do. However, call it what it is. It’s evolution. Calling it “theistic evolution” doesn’t make it softer or look like it’s being designed. As for Micro vs Macro, that’s another silly distinction - the only difference is the timescale.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What do you not understand?
“Theistic evolution” has nothing to do with making evolution “softer.” Evolution can be looked at from the perspective of a theist, just as it can be looked at from the perspective of an atheist, or of an agnostic. It’s always evolution, which itself is religiously neutral. Evolution implies neither theism nor atheism. Those are philosophical perspectives one brings to bear on any scientific observation and explanation.
StAnastasia
L
liquidpele
Guest
Exactly. That’s why I think the term “theistic evolution” is like calling a rose an “esor” and expecting others to think it’s something else. Just call it what it’s accepted name is, unless one is actually *trying *to cause confusion.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’m fine with that. In fact, I like an argument made by Bishop Antje Jackelen a few years back, in Theology and Science (around 2006). She suggested that it would decrease confusion if we were simply to abandon the term “theistic evolutionism,” and simply say “I accept evolution and I believe in God,” or “I accept evolution and I do not believe in God” (or “…I am not sure”). I think she’s right.
When I use the terms “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary theism” I employ them either (1) to distinguish myself from so-called “Intelligent Design” advocates who say that science is not sufficient to explain the diversity of life, or (2) to tease out the theological nuances of a position which sees God as having built the principle of evolution into creation, just like gravity or atomic structure or the Pauli Exclusion principle were built in…
StAnastasia
R
reggieM
Guest
A link please – someone of the stature of Owen Gingerich claiming this also.
To help you understand – a member of the ISSR claims that there is “Theistic evolution”. You ridiculed that concept by claiming that there is a “theistic gravity”. But it was Gingerich who stated that there is atheistic and theistic brands of evolution.
You continue to ridicule him by fabricating a definition of theistic gravity that nobody uses.
In other words, Gingerich is talking about a fantasy-concept “theistic evolution” which is no more real than “theistic gravity”. But at the same time you praise Gingerich as a member of a prestigious organization.
So, you’re refuting your own claims here. They can’t be reconciled.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I don’t know what a “fantasy concept” is. Theistic evolution simply means that one brings a theistic perspective to bear on the study of evolution. I am a theist (a believer in God). I also accept the evidence supporting the theories of evolution, gravity, and plate tectonics. Is that simple enough to understand?
R
reggieM
Guest
I can fully understand that you had to concede the point. You can provide no scholarly reference to “theistic gravity”.
So, yes – this certainly has been simple enough to understand.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Reggie, of course I provided you with a scholarly argument – let him see who has eyes to see.
Antje Jackelen is a member of ISSR as well, and she and I have discussed this point at length. (For her view see informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a779654618~db=all~order=page)Sure, there are ISSR members (including such scholars as Bob Russell and John Polkinghorne) who see the value to speaking of “theistic evolution.” But there are numerous others who see no particular value in insisting on the term as a sort of litmus test for who is or is not a respectable member of the science and religion dialogue.
At the inaugural meeting of the ISSR in Granada, Spain (2002) one of the points of discussion was how to think of theism in relation to basic elements of the modern world view, such as gravity, plate tectonics, evolution, climatology, subatomic physics, etc. The consensus of the participants – who included Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists – was that theism does not affect the doing of science. An atheist, a theist and an agnostic could all work equally well on evolutionary biological projects.
They would bring different presuppositions to bear on their work, but they would see the same evidence. (I don’t recall whether Owen was at that 2002 meeting.)In summary, I have no dog in this fight or pony in this race.
Whether you call it theistic evolution, or evolutionary theism, or simply evolution as viewed by a theist, they may carry different nuances, but they all work. I consider myself a Catholic who looks at evolution (and gravity, plate tectonics, subatomic physics) through the metaphysical and theological lens that understands God as working through the natural processes of the created world.StAnastasia
R
reggieM
Guest
This was a good reply – thanks for the detail offered below and the link above.Reggie, of course I provided you with a scholarly argument – let him see who has eyes to see.
It’s clear that there are some scholars who take theistic evolution seriously. It’s more than merely bringing a theistic perspective to something, but is a evolutionary-explanation that is distinct from “atheistic evolution” (and that is precisely what Owen Gingerich said).
What would be the different presuppositions that theists would bring to the evidence that atheists would not bring?
Professor Gingerich’s view, a division between atheistic and theistic evolution is the belief (for theists like him) that some mutations are inspired (necessarily since “most mutations are disasters” - and therefore cannot be the source for new, functional features in organisms). Additionally, he believes that there has been “creative (name removed by moderator)ut in the long chain of being” – that is, God has intervened in the process at some points.
Clearly, his views have some support in ISSR.
More importantly, if God does intervene in the evolutionary process – this has a major impact on evolutionary theory itself.
In what ways does your perspective make any difference? In other words, what would be different (aside from your subjective experience) if you viewed evolution, gravity, physics, etc. through an atheistic lens?
C
Contarini
Guest
A propos of the OP, Giberson is speaking at my university this evening. Should be interesting!
Edwin
Edwin
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Well, Reggie, these are deep questions you ask, and I’ve got a deadline today, so let me think about them. In brief, however, I can say that while a theist might regard the Chicxulub asteroid at the K-T boundary as God’s intentional “clearing they way” by opening niches for mammalian evolution, an atheist would see this simply as a contingent, undirected event.
Now, as a theist, I would not say that we should expect to see evidence of this intervention, i.e., a detectable deviation of the bollide in its orbit prior to impacting earth, as if a giant invisible “hand” had nudged it. Divine action has to be infinitely more subtle than that. Nor would I agree with Owen (if he argues this) that we should see abrupt leaps in mutation that cannot be incrementally accounted for by historical genetics. But there would be no way to exclude God from having guided the process (as a Dawkins might wish), just as there would be no way to prove that divine intervention had occurred.
I think of divine intervention more in the lives of conscious persons. I know people to whom inexplicable things have happened that have changed their lives dramatically. I can’t prove it was divine intervention, but why should I need to? If I believe God acted in my life I need no proof, and no “proof” I could give would convince an atheist anyway.
Have you read from the five-volume CTNS Vatican series on Divine Action? ctns.org/books.html
StAnastasia
- Status