I’m not quite clear as to the intent of the origianl post. The title of the article posits that there are only two “sides” to such a debate. That frames the picture of evolutionary theory in what I can only interpret as “Creationism vs Mechanism.” In this regard, I think that the contribution of the tract from William James by Leela is of great imporatance.* Personally, I have never accepted that creationism and evolutionism are necessarily mutually exclusive, and see the debate as artificial.
I also consider that E&C is fundamentaly (lol!) a christianist debate, not inclusive of at least one viewpoint that makes the whole question irrelavant, whether one agrees with that interpretation or not. In fact, I would guess that most arguments it the form “it’s ether A or X” are not inclusive of whole ranges of relavant factors. This also goes with the very strong contention that our N-V-O sentence structure, with its current heavy emphasis on the noun rather than the verb, is misrepresentative of how things actually work.
As to the article linked to in the OP, it is limited in its scope as to interpretation, particularly in a direction that might support ID or creationism. The only thing it supports in its form and content is that people are willing to continue examining the issue from a wider perspective, and certainly not necessarily from a theological point of view. In other words, as I see it, the article shows that the respondees to the poll are open to thinking, and not set in a particular view, and certainly have not necessarily abandoned Darwinism as a working hypothesis. And remember, it is easy to get a desired answer by posing a question in a particular way. There is a whole disciplin surrounding that dynamic which is freely used by anyone wishing to make a point consistent with their views That can happen even with the best of intentions, so I am not claiming deliberate manipulation on the part of the article, though it might be thus construed.
As a side note, I was visiting my very devotionally oriented Catholic mother at the care facility she is in at the moment. She had been watching a progam on the diversity of life forms on the planet. It showed the bacteria living miles beneath the surface, in acid pools in Yellowstone, and around lightless thermal vents under the sea. It showed the vast array of animals currently inhabiting the surface, many of which were even recent discoveries. There was some speculation as to life on other planets, with reference to the some 300 exoplanets we now know of.
She said somthing that surprised me, knowing her strict Catholic views. She said “I think there must be life out there. I can’t imagine Picasso painting just one painting. He was prolific. Is God any less creative or abundant in His work?” I thought of the deep fiield photos from the Hubble telescope, remembering that our own galaxy is some 100,000 light years across. That is about 52.5 billion times the distance from here to our Sun. I had to wonder if she is right. What if “Life” is a force that is inherent in the questionable divison we make between spirit and matter? What if in our tendency to believe that the small contents of our intellect equalls the total Reality of being, we are trying to stuff the imessurable infinity of the Creator into our concepts so we can control Him as a factor in our argumentations?
I remember someone who said, as a measure of our inability to see the whole picture at once, “This is always already the ‘other world.’” To me that would include the “rebooting” idea above with its alternative result. Maybe the movie Enemy Mine has more going for it than we might believe. Maybe we can learn somthing, and be less arrogant before our God, or at the very least, before our fellow folks. In other words, belive or not in God, Jesus, or whatever you wish or don’t wish, but allow that even our best efforts are inadequate to measure the immensity of what IS.
*It could be wise for folks who might dismiss that article to read it at least seven times, each time with due deliberate attention to meaning. I give as examples to support this advice the Jesuit who read the transcription of a metaphysical lecture seven times before he realized that he was not only unaware of its actual intent from the begining, but had been superimposing his own view onto it and had thus blinded himself. I also had a friend who was told repeatedly to read a short book, because he was missing the point. He read it 27 time before he could see though his own prejudice as to its contents. Both readers in the above example were happy with the end result of seeing through their own limitaitons of understanding.
