Comments on: An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds

By: Threads from Henry’s Web » Book: Evolution and Christian Faith

Threads from Henry’s Web » Book: Evolution and Christian Faith — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:52:51 +0000

[...] reading of Genesis. I happen to agree with her on this point, as I state in my earlier blog post An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds. The problem, as most people who have discussed this issue will see, is that with these two [...]

By: Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Absolute Theology; Flexible Science

Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:44:07 +0000

[...] of the data that is so flexible it could almost be described as “formless and void.” I blogged about this some time ago, and simply noted that if one took “after their kind” phenomenologically, something [...]

By: Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Plantinga on The God Delusion

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:35:11 +0000

[...] what they already believe. I have previously commented on some other work by Plantinga in my post An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds, and I found his arguments in favor of a theistic science pretty seriously unconvincing. Other [...]

By: Martin LaBar

Martin LaBar — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:30:53 +0000

You’ve done some interesting work, especially in the first part of this post.

Thanks.

By: Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Sat, 20 May 2006 21:33:47 +0000

Daniel James Devine said:

If the Bible doesn�t talk about �science

By: Daniel James Devine

Daniel James Devine — Sat, 20 May 2006 20:11:37 +0000

Henry Neufeld says:

“Let me note first that I don�t think that the Bible makes scientific statements, and thus there should not be an issue of conflict between what the Bible teaches and what one learns from science, since they are talking about different topics.”

If the Bible doesn’t talk about “science” topics, exactly whose choice is it to determine what is (or isn’t) a science topic?

By: Jim Goodfellow

Jim Goodfellow — Sat, 20 May 2006 16:09:31 +0000

The Bible worldview has its own set of problems.

Do we have the correct Bible, what was the intent of the authors rather than what we impose on them after the fact, is the canon we accept the correct canon, is the Bible the word of God or the witness of human authors.

By: Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Sat, 20 May 2006 12:23:45 +0000

Mythos said:

You don�t have to be a Greek philosopher or one of their students to use �kind

By: Henry Neufeld

Henry Neufeld — Sat, 20 May 2006 12:14:55 +0000

Glen Davidson said:

The problem for the creationists/IDists from the Bible is where humanity is concerned.

and Bryson Brown said:

I suspect the place of teleology in nature is the nub of the issue.

I think these two together probably give the correct answer. Once you allow an undirected process to “create” in the sense of producing new structures and processes, where will it ever end? Personally, I don’t think it does end, thus humans are the result of undirected processes. How this relates to my faith is not something I see any need for science to deal with. That’s my problem.

By: Bryson Brown

Bryson Brown — Sat, 20 May 2006 05:47:26 +0000

Hmmm. I suspect the place of teleology in nature is the nub of the issue. As soon as evolution in anything but a trivial sense is allowed, you have to accept that clearly functional characteristics of organisms can develop in a natural, undirected way. And if the apparent teleology of organs, limbs etc. is a product of undirected natural processes, not God’s will working directly in the world, then Deism is perfectly sound theology. For Plantinga, and a lot of others, that’s a completely unacceptable result. (A terrible kind of argument, and completely at odds with any respect for the evidence, but religion comes first for Dr. P.)