Skip to main content

Posts

Elliott Sober on Evolution and God

"Evolutionary theory, properly understood, does not conflict with the idea that God occasionally intervenes in nature – for example, by once or twice causing a beneficial mutation to occur. Biologists have not detected any such interventions despite the data and theory they have assembled about mutation. However, I think it is a mistake to expect biological experiments to be able to detect such one-off acts of divine intervention, especially if those acts occurred in the distant past. Science isn’t in that line of work." http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/biological-point-view/
Post a Comment
Read more

Randall Balmer on Evangelicalism's Legacy of Social Activism

"The conundrum of American evangelicalism deepens when one considers the history of American evangelicalism itself, especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Antebellum evangelicals mounted a comprehensive campaign to remake society. They worked to abolish slavery and to establish public education, known at the time as 'common schools,' in order to advance the fortunes of those less fortunate. They advocated equal rights for women, including voting rights, and they sought reform of the penal system (the whole notion of a 'penitentiary,' where a criminal might be rehabilitated -- become penitent -- and eventually rejoin society). Antebellum evangelicalism also included a robust peace movement, and Charles Grandison Finney, the most influential evangelical of the 19th century, excoriated capitalism as utterly inimical to Christianity. Finney allowed that 'the business aims and practices of business men are almost universally an abomination in the sigh...
Post a Comment
Read more

Evolution and Pure Chance

A student and I had a discussion in class about the results of the evolutionary process as byproducts of pure chance. I initially addressed the following issue: Whether the current debate about evolution and intelligent design has been framed as pure chance vs. intelligent design. Based on what I said in class, my answer was “Yes.” The student also recognized that that’s how it has been framed by others. But she ended up addressing a different issue: Whether it ought to be framed as pure chance vs. intelligent design debate. The student’s answer was “No,” because evolutionists, according to her, do not think that evolution has anything to do with pure chance. Based on my understanding of what she said, it cannot be a byproduct of pure chance, since the evolutionary process, which aims for the survival of the fittest, involves some forms of necessities. I am assuming that what she meant by that is that it was naturally necessary that some animals would develop certain...
Post a Comment
Read more