Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the problem may well be that darwin and the american protestant evangelical movement have/had different conceptions of god--darwin more a nominalist (a transcendent god that may create things and put them into motion, but who does not intervene in the movement itself--this movement, over the long term, is evolution)---- american protestant conservatives seem to have a very different idea of god, more a dad who lays out everything down to its last detail. in darwin, you have room for autonomy, even at the level of long-term development of bio-divesity: the american evangelical right does not want to allow for any autonomy in history, only a space for choice--belief or its opposite, salvation or damnation. that's it. everything else is preordained. i dont understand how this gets squared wth free will--but this is not my problem.
|
This analogy is one of the main problems I have with ID. I have no problem with speculating that something may have started the ball rolling (created something out of nothing, if you will), but not in a science class. Even those of us who speculate that there may have been a "big bang" usually do not claim to have any idea as to what was here before that, and before that, etc...
So the ball is rolling and science has some pretty good reasons to believe that things are evolving and adapting to their environment. Most of the ID information I have read tends to claim that there is a designer actively involved in deciding which adaptions occur, which ones are successful and which ones fail. IMHO it is going too far and religious by implication to teach that there may be an active designer deciding evolutionary adaptions.