I asked this question a little while back-
http://
EvC Forum: Michael Dowd - "Thank God for Evolution" -->
EvC Forum: Michael Dowd - "Thank God for Evolution"
It seems that Michael's theology is of a kind my mother was always trying to tell me exists - that science and faith and in particular evolution and christianity can be brought together. Dowd is a consumate showman and uses audio-visuals excellently.
In the NYTimes review Ruse wonders whether there is anything especailly spiritual about LUCY and doubts that but given Micahel's taking to Maclean's triune brain to which M. Dowd added the "higher porpoise" it is not out of intuitive possibility for Michael to claim some kind of access to evoulutionary "spirituality" provided the physico-theology in this particular is not directly in line with "the great chain of being".
Dowd ascribes to a hierarchical perspective of multilevels and an aggregative character (not branching) to substance, which puts his general accidental thoughts generally, in layers with mine. The whole idea he has however depends very heavily on the existence of "cosmic teleology"- that we are all God's star stuff.
It seems to be Mayr's position that although Huxley was mistaken that Darwin did away with teleology historically later developments permitted Quine to assert (the same) that the greatest contribution of Darwin to the world, was the "refuation" of Aristotle' final cause. If that is true Dowd's creation is nothing but a next generation of touchy feely creationism vis video art.
I just spent a week at Ghost Ranch and realized that my theological reflections are just as far out religiously (beyond others) as my scientific ones (are) so I am not doubting that Dowd's theology can not come to compete for some slice of the EvC pie (as ID did) but Quine and Mayr need to be handed the house literally before reciprocity opens up (origins and extinction concepts) in academia for the tolerance of Michael's view of change.
If you see Michael on Opra W it may be because I had a copy of his book sent to one of her producers
As for Micahel's particular excercies in the book, I still get more simply by reading Kant.
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.