Re: [asa] Jerry Coyne's Confused Attack on Religion

Hi Randy,

"Thanks for drawing attention to this review. I was struck by his comment: "If we cannot prove that humanoid evolution was inevitable, then the reconciliation of evolution and Christianity collapses." and later "Giberson and Miller proclaim the inevitability of humanoids for one reason only: Christianity demands it."

This is where Coyne may have a point. If humanoids were the end target from the very beginning, then they would qualify as Dembski's "specified complexity" and would either need to be the result of inevitable convergence (the front-loaded option as dubbed on this list) or of supernatural guidance along the way. Conversely, the idea that humanoids were the goal from the beginning is not discernable from science but only from revelation. Ergo, Christianity demands it but not science."

Agreed - science is not telling us that humans were inevitable. Giberson and Miller appear to get their position about convergence from Simon Conway Morris. And while I find some of the convergence arguments to be of interest, it is more interesting (to me) that the main front-loadin' dude (yours truly) finds his views to be more similar to Dawkins than Conway Morris. After all, it is *theology* that steers me away from Morris and Miller's view - I don't think God intended to create "humanoids," as if talking dolphins would have sufficed.

If Coyne wants to pick fights with Miller and Giberson and their attempt to use science to support theology, it makes me no difference. After all, I'm the one guy who, for years, has consistently argued that these design arguments are neither science nor religion/theology/apologetics.

Where Coyne errs, and errs big time, is in hijacking science to make it sit in judgment of God's existence and the truth of the birth and resurrection of Christ. That's why I focused on it.

 -Mike Gene

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Randy Isaac
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Jerry Coyne's Confused Attack on Religion

  Mike,
    Thanks for drawing attention to this review. I was struck by his comment: "If we cannot prove that humanoid evolution was inevitable, then the reconciliation of evolution and Christianity collapses." and later "Giberson and Miller proclaim the inevitability of humanoids for one reason only: Christianity demands it."

    This is where Coyne may have a point. If humanoids were the end target from the very beginning, then they would qualify as Dembski's "specified complexity" and would either need to be the result of inevitable convergence (the front-loaded option as dubbed on this list) or of supernatural guidance along the way. Conversely, the idea that humanoids were the goal from the beginning is not discernable from science but only from revelation. Ergo, Christianity demands it but not science.

    As for convergence, Coyne notes that "We recognize convergences because unrelated species evolve similar traits. In other words, the traits appear in more than one species. But sophisticated, self-aware intelligence is a singleton: it evolved just once, in a human ancestor."

    Randy

  Mike wrote:
  Jerry Coyne has written a lengthy, critical review of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Karl W. Giberson and Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul by Kenneth R. Miller. You can read it here:

  http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG.
  Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.10 - Release Date: 1/19/2009 12:00 AM

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 25 22:27:00 2009