Bertvan:
> I enjoyed your piece.
OK, we're off to a good start.
> I have no objection to a "fully gifted creation", as long as
> the "gift" isn't defined as "chance variation and natural selection".
Please note that we must speak of "gifts" in the plural. One category of
such gifts that I find useful to identify is an extremely rich "potentiality
space" of life forms that would be viable in a suitable environment. Each
point in this space represents a viable organism; a species would be
represented by a cluster of nearby points; similar species would form
clusters of clusters, etc.
Evolutionary development would be represented by motion along a path through
potentiality space. In this context, "chance variation" would seem to me to
be a very fruitful means to explore potentiality space and to facilitate
motion (by variation) to new regions. Various selection effects would then
affect the success rates for settling into previously unoccupied regions of
potentiality space.
Hence, "chance variation and natural selection" need not (and cannot)
"create" anything. All these processes need (and can) do is to explore the
potentiality space that is already an essential part of the universe's
"being" and to discover regions that are fruitful under the prevailing
circumstances.
> I suppose you feel religious beliefs pose
> a threat to science, and I'm convinced the real threat to science is
> materialism.
Some religious beliefs are a threat not only to science but to all forms of
rational inquiry. What many of us are trying to do is to formulate and
articulate a set of religious beliefs that help us make sense of the
totality of our human experience, including our experience with empirical
science and other forms of rational inquiry. Traditionalists in religion
view us with considerable discomfort.
Hard-line materialism (matter is all there is, and it needs no Source of
being) can become a threat to science *if and when* it asserts that the
materialist worldview is fully warranted by the sciences or that it is
merely a logical extension of the natural sciences. There is a lot of
rhetorical bluster by proponents of materialism that this is the case, and
many in religious communities have bought that story. I find both actions to
be unwarranted. That's the tragedy of the creation/evolution debate.
On the rest of your posting: Sorry, I cannot follow what you are saying.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 28 2000 - 09:48:44 EDT