yes
Steve:
>> I have never heard of Ted Peters or Mark Worthing, and I have read fairly
>> widely in the Creation/Evolution debate. As for the Pope, I am not sure that
>> he really is a TE/EC, let alone a "theologian".
Jonathan Clark:
>Ted Peters is at the Pacific Lutheran seminary, Mark Worthing is at Luther
>College. Most are interested and write on the broader science-theology
issues. >While you are at it, you should consider reading some of Wolfhart
Pannenberg
>as well. The pope not a theologian? Shhh.... don't tell the catholics.....
:-) I've debated creationists who seriously believed that the Pope wasn't a
Christian.
>> "At the turn of the century it was relatively easy to be a Darwinist and also
>> a theist, because "evolution" allowed room for God to act in nature, for
>> example by providing the needed variation. Provine reckons that the
>> majority of evolutionists at that time were theists who thought of evolution
>> as divinely guided or inherently progressive. With the coming of the
>> synthesis, biological evolution became wedded to physicalist theories of
>> nature which absolutely barred consideration of purposeful forces in
>> evolution. NeoDarwinists found no need or place for purposeful forces in
>> their theory and hence concluded that evolution is unguided and
>> purposeless." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p235)
>
>Since when has Provine become such an authority on the history and
>philosophy of science-theology interaction that Johnson relies on him and
>ignores people such as Moore (who wrote "The post-darwinian
>controversies") or Livingstone who paint a very different picture?
Johnson is neither a theologian nor a scientist. He is a propagandist.
Therefor it should come as no surprise that he picks and chooses among the
available information.
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb