ThankGodForEvolution.com

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 producersAs 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.

quote:

---

along either of those paths, or simply continues trying to juggle the contradictions in his current ideas, he will be leaving behind a number of hard-core "true believers" who will not accept any questioning or critical thinking applied to their unwavering dogma

---

You seem to say this somewhat dogmatically. I do not think that it is impossible for socialYECism to meld fully with my own take on E/C. It is just unclear to me how this may occurr. There is some kind of common ground between my own position and YEC on "form" but how this formats out of geological layers is difficult to make an orbit out its historical trajectories. Dowd however does not"juggle" anything in the context. He simply walks back and forth, sort of "to and fro". It is rather that there IS a perception of "contradiction" in the science side that I think does not exist (Mayr example). So it seems to me that, in Michael's superfluidity you impute a contradition that can only be in the a posteriori data. There may be one in the trascendetal logic of the same but Dowd IS NOT that philosophical. He is rather trying to gain access to evolutionary psychology mentally. As I suggested this may not be impossible but it is hard indeed to feel the intuition unless one is already committed to the science and THEN any contradcition - not the other way around...Perhaps you could reiterate or recapitulate your-

quote:

---

Alas, the Rev. Dowd cannot have it both ways. His acceptance of scientific research must lead at least to a kind of theism that acknowledges a non-interventionist creator (we are all on our own now), if not to full-scale atheism (we represent a particular state of development in an unguided process where life is working things out for itself as it goes along).

---

Biology is not physics and it is not really a great thought to try to apply thinking that works for the latter in the former place. Evolution however is not psychology. There is an intricate pattern of thought that must be passed on the way. Dowd seems to suggest a way. His work is some kind of response to the Creationist revival of the 60s and explains in large social swatchs how I am out of my own time and generation despite best efforts I for example could give.Again, I do not view this as a splitting, as much as an attempt at a broader harmony. His position is compatible with a more than ecumenical view than a less and more protestant style one.The only question for me, as I review his work, is whether his emtional and subjective appeal works as motivation for an expanded externality of potential objectivity. YECism for instance always has to struggle against its own "stranggling down" of the region of objective research possibility.When Dowd questions "first century" thought he is really only tryig to open his own religious notions to what is day to day today. His lizard legacy does not work for me but it may for someone who has not spent as much time comparing herps as I have but rather followed the lemmings as they may have migrated off this "mental map".Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.