On Fri, 29 Dec 1995 22:49:31 -0500 you wrote:
[...]
BH>I think the best line of defense against the argument from
>imperfection is to point out its theological underpinnings
>and thus marginalize it according to the rules of the game
>of science [ I kind of like this metaphor ;-)].
Good point!
In any event, all that Gould and Dawkins' "argument from imperfection"
prove is that if there is a God, He does not create things absolutely
perfect, in an engineering sense. They don't prove there is no God.
In fact they don't even prove there is no Christian God, because
nowehere does the Bible declare that God made things absolutely
perfect in an ideal engineering sense. All it says is that they are
"good" (Gn 1:4ff), which my online Strongs states towb, "good...in the
widest sense.
The problem is that Gould and Dawkins pontificate endlessly about
God, yet I doubt if they have ever done any serious theological study.
Their view of God is fixated at a Sunday School level, which is
probably exactly where they learned it!
BH>...No one has
>shown how to do this better than Paul Nelson, IMHO. Be on
>the lookout, I heard from Paul that a modified version of
>his paper _The Role of Theology in Current Evolutionary
>Thinking_has been accepted for publication in <Biology and
>Philosophy>. Did you hear that Stephen ;-).
I hear it, "Biology and *Philosophy*". I am grateful for that
small mercy! I look forward to it also being published in both
SCIENCE and NATURE! :-)
Happy New Year!
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------