Author Archives: Jon Garvey
I’m afraid things are still rather slack on the Hump post front, though not on the work front generally: I did a review of N.T. Wright’s fantastic chapter on Christ and the Cosmos over at Peaceful Science; I got the indexing finished on God’s Good Earth, which means it’s now actually in press, and I’m simply awaiting news on availability (and price); and I’ve been beavering away on the new book, to accompany (one hopes) those on Genealogical Adam by Josh Swamidass (due out November) and Andrew Loke (due out I have no idea).
Another year has passed at the Camel’s Eyrie (and, I suppose, elsewhere!), and it’s been a good one. We’re now big in China and Turkey as well as Sweden.
I took part in a discussion over at Peaceful Science a week or two ago, in which the slam dunk evidence of nested hierarchies for evolution was (not for the first time) being disputed – by me, amongst others.
I’ve been thinking about the rarity in our lives, overall, of moments when we can really celebrate some triumph. I mean the champagne, flag-waving kind of celebration that you get from winning an Olympic Final, or that an old-fashioned army got returning from a victorious battle before war became politically complicated as well as efficiently bloody.
Daniel Deen (aka Philosurfer), over at Peaceful Science, has just reviewed a chapter by Brian Curry in the book Christ and the Created Order. The chapter is interesting in focusing on the role of the “powers” that are so prominent in New Testament teaching, but so completely absent from science-faith discussion generally.
I think what irks me most about the scientistic mindset is how much it takes for granted about the world, as if needing no explanation – things like logic, reliable human faculties and so on.
Here’s some theological musing inspired by the discussion we’ve had on “final causes” connected with the last couple of posts.
Support for the suggestion in my last post, that we are likely to be missing significant biological truths by not recognising Aristotelian formal and final causation, comes from a philosophical direction in a recent article by Thomist analytic philosopher Ed Feser .
Reader Wayne Fair kindly sent me a link to this overview article on morphogenetic fields, which has nothing (directly, at least) to do with Rupert Sheldrake or telepathy, but which does address an important and under-investigated subject. The author of this review article, Michael Levin, is particularly interested in the highly practical goal of organ regeneration after trauma or surgery, and the theoretical basis of form is closely tied into equally important medical issues such as the causes of cancer.
Molinism has come up for discussion again on Peaceful Science. Although it’s popular nowadays with significant Christian thinkers like William Lane Craig, it seems to me to be a complicated philosophical way of failing to solve the problems for which it is designed, whilst creating more.