05 November, 2010

God and Evolution: A New Proposal - ABC Religion & Ethics - Opinion

"I want to examine what I see as the three most profound problems for Christian theism since the advent of Darwinism, so profound as to cause many to see Darwinism as a "defeater" of Christian belief. These problems were certainly not absent before the discovery of evolution - indeed, they are classic inheritances from Christian philosophical theology which have exercised Christian thinkers at least since the third century.
But evolutionary theory has certainly sharpened them in particular ways that, I would insist, responsible contemporary Christians cannot now avoid confronting.
What then are the three problems that confront us when we try to see a coherent relation between a good, providential deity and the unfolding created process?"

Click on the link below to read entire article.

God and Evolution: A New Proposal - ABC Religion & Ethics - Opinion

3 comments:

  1. For anyone interested in some excellent reading on the subject of evolution, creation, from Professor Philip Stott, a christian scientist who has spoken widely around the world in scientific conferences on these subjects check out this website:

    http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/evolution/index.htm

    Tim, you might find something interesting among his articles to quote on your blog for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Critics of the theory of evolution have pointed out that there are many examples of complex processes in the human body which the theory of evolution cannot properly account for.

    Just to mentioned two processes which create doubt in evolution are the cilium function and blood clotting.

    How the cilium function in our respiratory system is one such example. The cilium sweep mucous toward our throat for elimination. How they do this is quite interesting.

    Another good example is the process of blood clotting.

    Both of these examples are processes which are irreducibly complex processes. That is to say, there would not appear to be intermediate stages which would do the job which they perform. This raises serious questions about the theory of evolution.

    It seems that intelligent design would be a much better explanation for the existence of these complex processes.

    http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/evolution/pages/015-intelligent-design.htm

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wayne, would you please get real? Just because you can't figure out how something is done, or how it came to be, does not mean that some diety created it out of nothing.

    I was part of an interesting conversation with some people on various levels of agreement/disagreement with evolution/creation, and the one thing I observed from it all was that those who adhere strictly to "creation" theories are those who are too impatient to wait to find out the real and highly complex answers (for which, to truly understand the answers, they might actually have to put in a little effort and do some work, themselves) -- they will settle for any explanation that sounds like it makes sense (to them, if not to anyone else) now! To creationists, having a ready answer is more important than having a correct answer. As if time is a factor, rather than accuracy. Matter of fact, most of them think they've already got the answer -- they just spend all their time tearing down anyone else's efforts that might find a different answer, one that does not necessarily agree with their own.

    Those of us who side with evolution find each step of the investigative process fascinating in and of itself. We're not in such a hurry to get to the "final answer." We enjoy the search for an answer as much as any treasure hunter enjoys following the various clues and maps and hints, and we're willing to put in the effort it takes to understand whatever information is next uncovered.

    Wayne, do you know why blood clots?

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics