Category Archives: Science

Divine action hiding in plain sight?

Leaving the question of a possible metaphysical makeover for science, fielded in my last post, hanging for now, I’ll follow gravity in returning to the matter of divine action. In any case this was the spin George Brooks put on my article in his flagging of the post at BioLogos, and it has also been discussed recently in another thread there.

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | 7 Comments

Why Evolutionary Creationists Need to Be Specific, or, Why George Brooks is Wrong

On BioLogos today, a frequent and apparently well-meaning poster, George Brooks, wrote the following: God COULD arrange an entire Cosmos at the very moment of creation. Or God COULD nudge and prod during the entire course of the Cosmos. It could work either way. And the difference in one scenario or another is based on premises that might be embraced or rejected by an entire denomination …. or by individuals within a denomination. Trying to compel BioLogos to BE SPECIFIC is a diversion … and not productive … when faced with Christian real estate that varies completely depending upon time and place…. and doesn’t really matter to the BioLogos mission. … Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Edward Robinson, Science, Theology | 20 Comments

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