@bjmiller in the future can you just say “evolution” instead of “Darwinian evolution”. This way, mainstream science can at least realize that you are talking about the present knowledge of evolutionary science in 2018 not the knowledge of Darwin in 1859. Thanks
Why not ask @bjmiller whether, when he uses the term Darwinism, he is referring to the knowledge of Darwin in 1859 as opposed to the modern synthesis, neo-Darwinism, or even “modern evolutionary theory”?
In fact, if you read his previous article, which he linked to in the article you cite, you can even find what he means by Darwinian evolution.
What really matters though, is which version of “evolutionary science” Denis Lamoureux is selling. So why not deal with that?
He is saying that everything he disagrees with is materialism of the gaps. But apparently “god of the gaps” isn’t a fallacy the way that he uses it. And most of that ENV post is a god of the gaps argument.
Personally, I don’t think I have ever used “fallacy” for a god of the gaps arguments. However, I do not find such arguments at all persuasive.
Denis did do work on the evolution of teeth in the past. He then got a theology degree, and is one of the leading voices in TE/EC. He is, in fact, the guy who coined the term “Evolutionary Creation.” His representation of evolution does matter because people do care what he thinks (just ask @sygarte and @Randy
He also is not up-to-date on genomic science. That is was never part of his training and expertise.
Why do people care what he thinks? Is he some leading lite in Theology? Because he is certain not a leader in evolutionary science. If his claim to fame is coining the term Evolutionary Creation, wow, what an utterly useless terminology.
Yes, he is a leading light in theology. Almost every book out their in this space is responding to him. There are several recent threads at BioLogos on him if you want to get caught up. That is probably why @bjmiller is writing this series now.
might want to see his list of publicationson pubmed–latest is 2018 publication. He works with a friend in U of Alberta Edmonton. on evolutionary biology; has PhD in this and theology. You would also enjoy the debate referred to. Dr Krauss referred to him respectfully as “Doctor, Doctor, Doctor”
This view seems to have incredibly disturbing implications for human rights. Are retarded people half imaged then? What about the aged? The fetus? It seems to me that unless God “gave” humanity an extra component at some point (I don’t care when, neanderthals, or maybe the upper paleolithic) to separate us from the animals, then it becomes very difficult to ground a traditional Christian understanding of the inherent worth of every human being.
I think I would have to opt for C.S. Lewis’s view regarding the image of God or human spirit being bestowed by God in some sort of supernatural act at some point in the evolutionary process. This seems to ground human rights far better than Lamoureaux’s view.
I am curious if you guys think I’m right about this. Perhaps a topic for another thread? Do you see another way to ground traditional Christian teaching if we accept Lamoureaux’s view?
First, I am so glad to see someone else who quotes Randal Rauser. I’m a fan of his kind approach. He’s a friend of Lamoureux but doesn’t hesitate to question him, too.
Second, I think I’ve listened to this one before, but I’ll do it again (I can’t at this very moment, but will try this weekend). George Macdonald’s view that God has a relationship with all of creation, including dogs, horses, and lesser animals, perhaps to a lesser extent with those that have less insight into responsibility, has attractive points to me. Thus, there’s a continuum of responsibility and relationship to God. As we grow in awareness of Him, we become both more responsible and more understanding of His characteristics. Thus, I think that Adam’s parents and great-great-grandparents also had relationship capabilities to God as well; but with the multi-thousandth generation before him, perhaps less, based on their God given intelligence, etc.
This is one option that I don’t think that Rauser or Lamoureux would accept; and while Macdonald acknowledged evolution’s possibility, I don’t think he got that deep into extrapolations. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
If there is a question about relationship between God based and those who have learning challenge, that’s a great point and really needs to come out. Autistic people, for example, may have less interaction than intelligence. I think that we could benchmark them though in terms of potential. Someone who is ill, mentally challenged, should be recognized as having all the potential, but not yet there. Once in Heaven, they’ll be healed.
I am not completely comfortable with this as a definition either. So your feedback is appreciated.
How are we to form an ethical system from this continuum? We put our dogs and cats to sleep, yet orthodox Christians have always been against HUMAN euthanasia. Why? On what basis? If we base this on self-consciousness, then the less self-concious someone is, the more disposable he/she is, and this seems wrong.
I think one possible way of constructing ethics without any outside input from God would be to appeal to some sort of Platonic form of the human person, which could be insantiated in the mind of God. And then we could say that the “form” of humanity is a considerably different form than that of a chimp and should therefore be treated differently. But this seems far too abstract to me.