Summations Only

Waking up this morning I had a calm feeling of a major resolution of the tension that animates our internet discussion, at least for me, more so(means (LESS)if I was to subjectively somehow quantify it) than my walkig and waken life.It is generally known that molecular biology has for decades been making "in-roads" THROUGH the turf of traditional organismic biologists but I have never seen any form the conclusion that the older/traditional/classic uses of the differences of the notions of "FORM" and "MATTER" have become 'inverted' in the progress of biology. This seems to come about because genes as used are not matter but so tightly associated with it that language has had to bear the strain of the atomic trend in physics and science generally as sociologically Russia fell.And so if there really is a difference of opinion about anti-science/evolution statements being debated among any kind of form or matter biologists (let's say, "physiologists" for short) then I am tending feel comfortable, at least initially, in the presumption that this is due to technology covering for matterialism with ACTUAL comphrehension of biological terms for formations being matter for materialism either implict or induced.The specific issue of stem cell research is directly at the form/matter divide.Theistic evolutionists some how are not phased by statistical confidence of shapes of material to come in ongoing research.But if "awe and wonder" replace the common sense difference of matter and form there is no doubt I would only continue to "wonder" if for instance the word "meristic" really IS NOT a matter of form but a form of matter and be in "awe" about how different EvC is from my actual life.Edited by Brad McFall, : 2letters

I just cracked Roughgarden's recent book
Amazon.com

quote:

---

Roughgarden, a Stanford biology professor and author of Evolution's Rainbow, is impatient with the current tone of creation/evolution debates, but takes them seriously as an expression of a "pent-up urge for talking about God" in American public life. Attentive to "the spiritual yearning of people that compels them to overlook the evidence" if evolution is portrayed as an enemy of faith, Roughgarden urges science educators to show "more sympathy and willingness to accommodate people of faith, to offer space for seeing a Christian vision of the world within evolutionary biology."

---

just to see if her "universe" was worth a more detailed read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have already commented on her here:
http://EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution -->EvC Forum: Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution
No, I did not find anything all that great because she said that "random mutation" has not been gainsaid AND that biology post-Synthesis went-on, to explain the source of variation, genetically.If these two observations are part of the case for a larger than an evc debate I will have to disagree.I think that nanotech and DNA computation may move to a better analytic control of mutation types and secondly that by ONLY conceptualizing variation extremes as distributed genetically misses an insight on form, I think herpetology already provided me and should have her, that, that FIRST finding the diveristy of the variation phenotypically provided is larger than historically explaining the sythensis regardless of the issues that Kimura brought up etc. So, from an enlarged discussion of these two points I do not see how any religious relations that Roughgarden will provide have any signs worth heeding as to expanding beyond EvC!