Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Adoptionism and biology: an interpretation of Darwinism?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 05:05 PM

You're being very kind, Father, in asking the question, since if bespeaks of a wonderful openness. I'm afraid in responding I will be much too argumentative sounding. Let me try to approach it from this angle, not based on Christian theology at all, but simply to suggest that we ought to go back to the original text and see what it has to say. What did Darwin actually say? That's the starting point. Without that as a foundation, it's really tough, because discussion of Birmingham moths really get us off track. AS for the moths, though (as with the breeding of domestic animals) I clearly remember this example from my high school biology text. But later I took a second look, and realized it has nothing to do with evolution as laid out by Darwin (it was actually Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, to whom we should ascribe the theory-- as is evident from Darwin's text). We can call it natural selection, but it is not evolution. Even if the case of the moths were factually correct, and there is now evidence brought to light that it was falsified evidence, but let's assume for a minute that the case of the moths in Birmingham was true evidence, it is not evidence or proof of evolution in the same since that evolution is typically propounded. There was no species change. And there was no real change within the species either. The light colored moths supposedly died out, the dark colored ones survived, because of the surfaces of things becoming darker due to coal dust, and therefore, the predators were able to see and eat and eliminate the lighter colored ones, and the darker ones survived, so superficially, you have a change in moths, which is called evolution. But again, there is no biological change whatsoever. As an analogy, let's look at Hitler, who desired to exterminate all of the Jews, and breed blond haired people. If he were entirely successful, over time there would be only blonds, and no Jews. So there would be a change, but not at the biological level, and certainly no change in species. And yet all of Darwinism depends on the ability to adapt biologically in order to change, evolve and progress from extremely simple inorganic compounds, to life, to complex life forms, in which a progressive change takes place toward more advanced species. The example of the moths if anything refutes that, it certainly doesn't add any credence at all to the theory.

This is not an argument in and of itself against evolution theory, it is simply that the example used in not an example of evolution and does not support evolution theory. Yet it was, and perhaps is still used, as an example in the high school biology texts.

The problem with theistic evolution is that it basically equivalent to Deism. God as a kind of watchmaker who winds of the watch and watches it run on its own. That is the inevitable implication.

Then there is the whole problem of the claim to origins. Remember, Darwin titled his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life."

The problem is that he or his disciples have never, and can never, make the case that evolution is an explanation for origins, and yet they always claim that. Aristotle dealt with this problem, the problem of infinite regression, over 2500 years ago. And yet the Darwinists, who are extremely poor theorists, never consider this. So while it could possibly be an explanation for change and development ( I doubt it is, and I doubt that it has ever been or ever will be scientific) it certainly is not a scientific theory of origins.

Now we can posit a Creator as the originator, and place Him at some point early on in the process, but by Darwinism's own principles, He certainly isn't needed after that. And by Darwin's own account, the whole point of the theory is to be able to perfect human nature by understanding that what motivates us is purely the result of naturalistic influences.

#22 Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 05:37 PM

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. That is very useful. Thank you Owen.

I accept that the moth example deals with trait selection and not with speciation. I accept that evolution's contentious aspect in relation to Scripture and Tradition is the notion that new species can emerge from precursors and that there can be significant physiological changes in both morphology and function from one species to the next. What HAS changed recently in evolutionary biology is the ancknowledgement that Darwin's "Tree of Life" does not take account of horizontal gene exchange and that we should probably be talking about a "Web of Life" instead. There was an article about this recently in New Scientist. Nevertheless the notion that there can be gross (albeit gradual) species metamorphosis is not changed. Your response identifies this but does not directly address the issue. So, when you move on to "origins" I COULD find myself agreeing with you IF by that you meant the silliness perpetrated by many atheists that evolution does away with the need for a Creator. Infinite (or rather in this case asymptotic) regression indeed. If by "origins" however you mean the genesis of homo sapiens as entirely discontinuous from, say, homo erectus then I suspect that I will be disagreeing with you since it in no way impugns the sacred image and likeness of God in us (it seems to me) to accept that there were CONNECTED precursors of modern humans in the hominid family. Anyway, be that as it may, let's pass on to "deism." I am most certainly not a deist. If God can raise the dead and do stupendous miracles (especially stilling storms) he's not incapable of making humans from scratch. But, that's not my point. His USUAL way of working is to work WITHIN (NOT OUTSIDE) the natural process. So I see God as the divine artificer WITHIN the evolutionary process directing it towards his intended end. Of course such a divine telos is entirely repugnant to atheist evolutionary biologists who resist all notion of directed evolution. But, "directed" or "non directed / spontaneous / chaotic" is not a choice upon which science can arbitrate. So, the choice remains a matter of faith.

Edited by Fr. Gregory (Hallam), 15 March 2009 - 05:38 PM.
syntax


#23 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 07:48 PM

From the perspective of the evolutionary biologist, Father, it doesn't matter what you believe, atheistic or not. Because they make the claim of science and their scientific claim of naturalistic advancement does not require God at all at any stage other than at the stage which they will not address, which as at the Beginning.

As believers we can say that WE plug God in wherever we please, but that is not a very sound position to take, especially when we are addressing what are essentially heresies of Christianity. In the old days the Church took heresies head on, through extensive intellectual engagement and many, many Church councils. Today we say, well, it doesn't matter, when the heretic spouts all kinds of nonsense. And the problem for Orthodoxy today is not heresy within the Church but the heresies of Christianity that are well established outside the Church and which influence unwitting parents and children, especially in our public school system, but which also dominates the media and the arts, and can undermine the confidence and conviction of the faithful, feeling that theology is somehow inferior to modern science. And unless we know our stuff, we are being irresponsible.

Why do I speak in terms of a heresy of Christianity. Because the idea that mankind will eventually be perfected through an evolution of biological mechanisms is quite simply a heresy of Christianity, since the whole idea of the perfection of human nature is a Christian one. And once men concede, as was done in the 18th Century, that all you need God to do is start things off, then it's Katy bar the door. That leads to all of the modern ideologies, of which Darwinism is one, that promise a progression of history to a point of perfection, usually hastened by an elite which claims it has some kind of special knowledge that will help to hasten this new age of history into being. It's really quite clear in Darwin. All you have to do is go to the text. He said that this theory, which he does not claim to be his at all, but acknowledges that it comes from Herbert Spencer, will bring about a revolution in psychology that will lead to the perfection of the human race.

At this point, it doesn't matter much what the scientific evidence is pro or con for natural selection as a complete explanation of human behavior and motivation, because we know that from the beginning we are not dealing with a scientific theory, but with an ideology.

AS a result of this ideological motivation, there is no longer a need to strive for the right orientation. There is only a need to understand motivation. And the psychological and psychiatric profession, drawing on Darwin's naturalistic explanation for human behavior based on biology, have invented a therapy for mankind's problems that has nothing to do with sin, with good and evil, with repentance, with virtue, with God, with heaven or hell, i.e. there is no need to reorient man toward God, toward a transcendent telos. None of that is necessary. Because, according to Darwin, we now know the basis of all human motivation. Nothing else matters.
The only thing that is necessary is to understand motivation based on the Darwinist model so that we become normalized in our behavior. That is to say, by understanding that all of behavior is biologically based, we realize that our bad behavior is simply the result of a false sense of guilt due to civilizational constraints that causes inner conflict that in turn causes us to "lash out", or an automated, unconscious reaction to external stimulai. And once we realize this we can pursue our aims without guilt messing us up, and without acting out on our instinctual drives and or as the result of an unhealthy repression of our instinctual drives. So that when we realize, for example, that anger and violence are simply vestiges of territorial imperatives of an earlier stage of human evolution, we need no longer resort to these methods. And voila, everything will be peace and love. And now it is claimed that it is the scientists studying neurobiology who will eventually be able to cure us of these lingering traits, probably just by popping a pill that will circumvent the various receptors in the brain that were necessary for the cavemen, but which are harmful today and standing in the way of liberal progress.

i.e. the whole Darwinian edifice is totalitarian at its core.

#24 Ryan

Ryan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 08:11 PM

Darwinian evolution is, in my opinion, incompatible with Christianity chiefly because it posits death and corruption before the Fall.

This topic is, of course, something of a dead horse here, so I'll set it aside. A more fundamental point hasn't really been made, a point ignored both by "Creationists" and Christian evolutionists.

Namely: despite its pretensions of neutrality, modern science rests on metaphysical presuppositions, as any approach to knowledge must. Chief among these is a dualistic separation between the material and the spiritual, and the belief that knowledge of the latter is unimportant in understanding the former. Many scientists today go one step further and reject the existence of the spiritual, adopting a purely materialist monism. Either way, modern science assumes that observable phenomena are not permeated with spiritual forces, or, if they are, these forces are not relevant in understanding observable phenomena.

Such an approach, it seems to me, is unacceptable to any faith, such as the Christian one, that acknowledges an interpenetration of spiritual and material substances. "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"- some knowledge about the supernatural is indispensable to understanding the natural. Even the pagan natural philosophers understood this, with the exception of the materialist Epicureans. Who can honestly say that modern science is not ideology, when it rests on dualist philosophical foundations that can be traced to medieval scholastics and Aristotelians?

This isn't to say that findings of modern science are completely wrong, but they are often distorted.

Moreover, modern science not only looks at the world in a distorted way; the world it is looking at is already distorted by the Fall. This, in my opinion, should make Christians think twice before revising or re-interpreting Divine revelation on creation in light of contemporary scientific models.

#25 Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 08:48 PM

Dear Ryan and Owen

If indeed science, ancient or modern, compromises its empiricism with ideology let us by all means confront that and expose it for what it is. In that context I find myself in complete agreement with both of you IF the alleged error has been committed. But when Christians (heretics or not) go on to say that humans were made 6000 years ago entire and complete in a garden ("somewhere"), then count me out. This is you see my difficulty. Those who want to compromise the science supposing it to be really an ideology after all or "only a theory" end up by degrees with a religious position that leads eventually to atheism or an Amish sort of Christianity.

#26 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 08:57 PM

Since the title of this thread is Adoptionism and biology, let me return to that topic. One way of starting is by looking at the experience of imperfection. Everyone in some way experiences this, and it is not a new thing, exclusive to something called "modern man." Everyone experiences this on a daily basis. We may also call it the experience of disorder. Things are not the way they should be.

When we get up in the morning, we don't just do things that are biological necessities, we go out and work for a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with biological necessity. We work to make things better. Better organized. More productive. And not just for economic reasons but for aesthetic reasons as well. There is something pleasing about getting an engine humming perfectly, and not just because it will run more efficiently with less gas consumption. Why is that? Believe me, there are actually people who have asked that question, going as far back as we have history.

Coupled with this is the experience of immortality. We work, give birth, save, for what? To satisfy the desire for immortality. That we will live on in the memory of others. Or that we will leave some lasting legacy for others to experience and enjoy. Why the heck is that??? Believe me, there are people who actually ask these questions and have thought and written extensively on the subject.

With Christ, many of these questions come into unique focus, with a kind of unique power. Because what do we see in Christ but perfect order, harmony, aesthetic symmetry, everything just right, at the right moment, but still in some mysterious way not the end but leading to the end. Who is this Christ that we see in Him beauty, perfect and an image of the perfect immortal being? And the claim is that He was that way from before the beginning of time, and yet He wants us to be just like that, without having been that way before. So we must make progress toward that goal. And it is not a goal to be achieved or seen in this life but is a transcendent goal -- fancy word being telos. So there is an immediate urgency to be like Christ and to share in His world now, but also with the recognition that this is a lifelong process that extends beyond this body, this world.

This is a very, very tall order. Very demanding. To be like Christ who is eternal perfection, since we were not born that way. So why not make Christ born a bit more like us, and see that he progressed through his imperfect beginning to his mature, adult state of perfection. So that we are not only gods by adoption but so is Christ. That makes him perhaps a bit more like us, and makes it seem or appear to be more rational a demand for us to be just like him.

But this has a the effect of immanentizing the process of spiritual development and progression into in intra-mundane, historical process, rather than a participation in the transcendent. So instead of seeing and experiencing Christ as fully god from the beginning who becomes fully man in the flesh, in which which we participate in Christ to the extent that is possibly as creatures, we actually become more like Christ, in fact, we become Christs, because we progress from birth to a state of spiritual perfection, just like Christ did. I do not know if I have accurately characterized the teachings of the adoptionists at this point, but it seems to me that this is the underlying assumption behind it.

And so while it took another 1800 years for the historical process to be seen as a purely immanent one, what we might see is that this immanentization of history is a symbolic equivalent of adoptionism, in secular form. it is clearly an equivalency that modernism is based entirely on the idea that the human race or species represents an innerworldly, historical progress from the imperfect to the perfect. You see this quite clearly in Hegel, and in a sense, everyone in the world today is supposed to be a Hegelian, because man has now progressed to the point where the Mind of Christ is Hegel, and history can come to an end. Hegel defined the Protestant Principle as the fact that the Mind of God and the mind of man (i.e. Hegel) have become one.

All of the great modern systems stem from this idea, that there is an immanent historical process that inevitably leads mankind from a state of imperfection to perfection. Marxism in the field of economics and politics. Comte in the field of "positive science." Darwin in biology. Freud in psychology. (although Freud was an historical pessimist and a political reactionary who nevertheless believed that many of man's problems could be alleviated by psychoanalysis).

We now know experientially and through observation that none of the claims of any of these systems is even remotely true. We don't even need Christian dogma to tell us that.

#27 Ryan

Ryan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:00 PM

If indeed science, ancient or modern, compromises its empiricism with ideology...


Empiricism is ideology... I don't think you understand that it is the methodology which is flawed. I have no doubt that the evolutionists were completely scrupulous in following this methodology.

The point of view you describe as leading to atheism or Amishness has been accepted in the Church since ancient times, and we're not Amish yet.

#28 Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:11 PM

Empiricism operates every time you eat. How else are you to describe what happens when you digest food? Empiricism is not an exhaustive account of reality but a necessary one when attempting to describe and account for natural processes. On the atheism / Amish challenge I have known plenty of people who have lost their faith trying to prop it up unnecessarily against truths from other disciplines. It is not a notion of truth that St. Basil or Justin Martyr would have approved.

#29 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:13 PM

Empiricism is ideology... I don't think you understand that it is the methodology which is flawed. I have no doubt that the evolutionists were completely scrupulous in following this methodology.

The point of view you describe as leading to atheism or Amishness has been accepted in the Church since ancient times, and we're not Amish yet.


Gotta go with Ryan and Owen on this one. empiricism is as much an ideology as any, it simply isn't honest about it.

empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. In the dictionary I looked it up in, it is listed as a philosophy.

It is easy to be objective, if you know what the objective is....

Herman the subjective Pooh

#30 Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:15 PM

Since Owen your argument is predicated on an assumption that I do not accept (that Darwinism is based on an ideology antithetical to Christianity and therefore has nothing to say on how the world is) I think I will stop posting now because I cannot accept that evolution is a doctrine designed to undermine Christianity. It's asking someone to choose between Republicanism and Beef Strognaoff.

Dear Herman

It's that little word "ALL" that's tricky isn't it? I can be an empiricist when describing natural processes without being an exclusive empiricist, ie., the "nothing but-tery" position of reductionists and their atheist bed fellows.

Edited by Fr. Gregory (Hallam), 15 March 2009 - 09:18 PM.
cross posting


#31 Ryan

Ryan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:20 PM

Empiricism is not an exhaustive account of reality but a necessary one when attempting to describe and account for natural processes.


In the context of modern science, empiricism is an epistemology based entirely on sense experience. It originated a few centuries ago, it was founded on dualism, and it is incompatible with Christianity, which believes many things about the natural world unsupported by sense-perception alone. Empiricism in its ancient form was propounded by the Epicureans and as such was explicitly rejected by the Church.


On the atheism / Amish challenge I have known plenty of people who have lost their faith trying to prop it up unnecessarily against truths from other disciplines.


Then they opted for modern ideology instead of ancient faith- a common and tragic occurrence.

#32 Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:28 PM

Dear Ryan

With these views then logically you should not participate in or benefit from anything in your culture and society that has been facilitated by progress in the natural sciences since these are based on a monstrous and demonic lie. So, don't have any medical treatment, drive your car to work or do anything in fact that is based on a scientific modelling of observational data ... empiricism. Even the Amish don't go that far.

#33 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:50 PM

I don't know if Darwin intended to undermine Christianity in developing the theory. I only know he was criticized for as much by colleagues, friends and family, including his wife!

But that is not my point, in any case.

Now, evolution as such is not something unique to Darwin. Otherwise, why would philosophers from Aristotle to Kant have felt compelled to address the issues presented by a theory of evolution? No, what Darwin did was apply a theory propounded by Herbert Spencer as a complete theory to explain both human origins and the superiority of some races over others. Spencer's theory was that there is a process of natural selection based on the principle of survival of the fittest in competition for scarce resources. It is a theory used to buttress 19th Century British liberal economics. It is almost entirely based on the theories of Thomas Malthus, which have, of course, been very effectively refuted.

For Darwin, under this competitive stress, nature selected the strongest elements within a species which, over time, were acquired biologically and then produced new, stronger species that were better able to adapt, and so on. He used Spencer's theory to explain the absolutely marvelous way in which animals in natural habitats were able to function.

Now, there are so many problems with this. Kant really addressed them before Darwin. One of the problems is that we have no experience of either spontaneous generation or generation from one species to another. We only have the experience of like generating like. This does not in itself deny the possibility, as Kant said, of sea life evolving into marsh life, and into land life, etc., and so on. But the problem is that if you keep pushing things back, you need some kind of transcendent law of evolution that is built into inorganic matter that pushes it to evolve. So you have a number of problems issuing from this. You cannot explain individual existence of something just by its species. And vice versa. You cannot explain a thing, just by examining the thing. There is some transcendent law behind it, a problem which Darwin and his followers simply do not seem to grasp, and when pointed out to them, they get angry and run off in a huff.

So I mention that the moth myth is not and was never an argument that defended the evolution of species into something other than what they already are, and yet it is used time and again to defend just that. And when it is pointed out, the defenders of Darwin just change the subject. This is what an ideologue always does. When cornered, he changes the subject, or he runs off in a huff.

#34 Ryan

Ryan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 837 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 09:52 PM

With these views then logically you should not participate in or benefit from anything in your culture and society that has been facilitated by progress in the natural sciences since these are based on a monstrous and demonic lie. So, don't have any medical treatment, drive your car to work or do anything in fact that is based on a scientific modelling of observational data ... empiricism. Even the Amish don't go that far.


I'm afraid that this is a slippery slope fallacy and if we are resorting to such methods then we are truly at an impasse. As I said, modern science gives a distorted picture; a distorted picture is not completely wrong.

#35 Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 10:00 PM

I agree with you Owen when you more clearly limit your targeting to Darwin's ideological overlay.

I agree with you Ryan when (at least) you concede that science is not all wrong.

.... which is something I suppose ... but I am still a tad suspicious that I am being softened up for a more comprehensive onslaught on evolution itself.

#36 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 10:00 PM

Dear Ryan

With these views then logically you should not participate in or benefit from anything in your culture and society that has been facilitated by progress in the natural sciences since these are based on a monstrous and demonic lie. So, don't have any medical treatment, drive your car to work or do anything in fact that is based on a scientific modelling of observational data ... empiricism. Even the Amish don't go that far.


Fr. Gregory, with all due respect, I fear you have picked a very unfortunate term to defend, with "empiricism". I believe it does not mean quite what you think it does. Scientific modeling, or, more correctly, the scientific method, is NOT empiricism. One does not have to be an empiricist to be a scientist. In fact, a true scientist has no choice but to reject empiricism, since he (or she) must acknowledge that unknown variables and immeasurables often affect the outcome of an equation or experiment and must be accounted for in some manner. Empiricism is the height of hubris in that it rejects the existence of something simply because it hasn't been discovered yet. It rejects anything that cannot be sensed or measured, and is therefore self-defeating, particularly at the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels.

Empiricism is a philosophy, by definition, and therefore means quite the opposite of what you are trying to say. I agree that further dialog is going to be quite frustrating if we continue down this path.

Herman the Engineer

#37 Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 10:12 PM

Then we (or maybe I) will not use the term Herman for we are using it quite differently. This isn't a problem.

#38 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 10:24 PM

I think it is always good to start with concrete cases, actual examples, rather than abstractions or theoretical positions. In that sense, it means that we begin with empirical observation and examination. It's a good method. The Bible uses it. Christ uses it. Christ did not start with the theory of the Incarnation and then spend his short life explaining it. He lived it.

The Fathers use this same approach. If there is a theory to be developed from it, OK. But best not to start with a theory or an abstraction. The idea of theistic evolution is a very difficult thing to discuss because -- what does it mean? You have to grapple with this problem of meaning before you can discuss anything. Whereas, if we go to an actual text, and read what somebody actually wrote, and use that as our starting point, then I think we can at least have something to discuss. And in this case it's important to start with what Darwin actually wrote, and not what subsequent generations say he wrote, or what subsequent generations say he meant. He's pretty clear. You really don't need a whole lot of analysis to get his meaning and intention. Most of the text is available online.

#39 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 March 2009 - 10:28 PM

Here's the concluding chapter, should anyone care to take a look:

http://www.literatur...chapter-14.html

Pretty quickly one can see some very startling conclusions that ought to give us pause.

#40 Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted 15 March 2009 - 11:07 PM

It means a characterisation of evolution that does not trespass into theology or anti-theology and a belief in a Creator God that doesn't preclude or exclude the insights of science concerning the HOW of it all. Quite clear really.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users