Category Archives: Science

The danger of dualism in theistic evolution

I’m continuing the theme here, from the last two posts, that origin of life questions may require not just new knowledge, but a new scientific paradigm – perhaps one that integrally includes God. This is counterintuitive to many Christians most involved in science, and who are comfortable with methodological naturalism as the only alternative to a crude supernaturalism. But I’ll try to justify it from a remark made to me by Joshua Swamidass on BioLogos.

Posted in Creation, Philosophy, Science, Theology | 17 Comments

Lamarck’s Zoological Philosophy

The epigenetic revolution has reintroduced the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics into evolution, to the extent that some of Darwin’s devotees are trying to spin the story that Darwin believed in it all along, and that orthodox science never denied it. Which is tosh, of course – acquired heredity was the epitome of heresy throughout my lifetime, at least. As I wrote in a zoology essay in 1968, referencing Jean-Baptiste Lamarck: There is no evidence that body cell characteristics can be transferred to reproductive cells. Well, that ought to have settled the matter! But with Lamarck beginning to be mentioned in polite company again without the customary sneer, … Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science | 4 Comments

Consensus science, fringe theology

BioLogos was ostensibly, as far as I can see, constituted to deal with one main problem. And that is, the problem that Evangelicals, especially in America, did not accept evolutionary theory. This was perceived to lead to two main problems. Firstly, in apologetics, Evangelical Christianity was in danger of being intellectually sidelined, unnecessarily alienating the educated community by denying the evidence of science. Secondly, pastorally, Christians brought up in Creationist churches were liable to be stumbled on encountering the strength of the evidence for evolution when they studied science, thus leading unnecessarily to abandonment of their Evangelical faith.

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | 9 Comments

Some further thoughts on black pepper

I just want to expand briefly on some strands in the updated peppered moth story  that I didn’t follow through in the last post.

Posted in Creation, Politics and sociology, Science | Leave a comment

Black power

I retain a nodding interest in the peppered moth, because it was one of the main examples of evolution I was taught in A-level zoology in the late ’60s. Since then it has suffered ups and downs both in real life and in its academic reputation.

Posted in Politics and sociology, Science | Leave a comment

Laws, damned laws, and statistics

One key part of the argument John Wesley brings for there being particular providence (see previous post), as against only general providence, is that the latter necessarily consists of the sum of the former: You say, “You allow a general providence, but deny a particular one.” And what is a general, of whatever kind it be, that includes no particulars? Is not every general necessarily made up of its several particulars?

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | 2 Comments

Bullfinches and genetics

Meet my friend, the bullfinch. It was our personal interaction which enabled me to get this photo last week.

Posted in Creation, Science | Leave a comment

Why “Evolutionary Creation” is a poor term.

Michael Denton’s book Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis, on which I’ve been drawing in the last few posts, opens up some interesting thoughts on a divinely-ordained evolutionary process, because its emphasis on a law-driven structuralism and more or less saltational changes frees one up from having to concentrate on the dodgy metaphysics of open-ended Neodarwinism (it’s undirected, but mysteriousy produces order – purely Epicurean, as N T Wright stresses). And if that order is intended, it’s not even Epicurean, but incoherent: God doesn’t aim at anything, and hits it every time.

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | Leave a comment

Water, the building block of life

Well, by that I don’t mean what NASA means. Michael Denton in Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis argues from the the astonishing emergent properties of water, which I discussed in the last post, to the idea that similar emergent principles underlie many of the most important features of life, and hence of evolution. My title, then, is intended to suggest that similar principles are involved in the properties of water and life.

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | Leave a comment

Water, law and divine action

I want, in this post, to use the properties of water as a proxy for the kind of emergent structural laws for which Michael Denton argues in Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. This is because it is a simple compound that is one of the examples he explores at length in his earlier book, Nature’s Destiny, to argue for the fine tuning of the universe for human life (pp.15-46).

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | 8 Comments