Thursday, October 14, 2010

Anti-Evolution Heretics?

What do the events of the Purim story, the lottery via which the Land of Israel was divided, the survival of the Jewish People over millenia of persecution, the weather in Israel, and the creation of the State of Israel, all have in common?

The answer is that they are all events which secular scientists/ historians would attribute to the random, unplanned, circumstantial luck of history, but which religious Jews perceive as being orchestrated by God. (Exactly how this happens is difficult to understand - I devote a chapter to various possibilities in my book - but the religious viewpoint is unequivocal that this happens.) In the words of Malbim:

"There are things that appear given to chance but are actually providentially determined by God… “the lot is cast in the lap,” hidden from the eye of man, handed over to chance, but nevertheless the eye of God’s providence is displayed in it, and the verdict that the lot brings up is not chance but is from God; just as with the apportioning of the land and so on, where the lot was under God’s providence." (Malbim, Commentary to Mishlei 16:33)


Now, I cannot see any difference - any difference at all - between the above cases and the neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism of random genetic mutation plus natural selection, which most scientists see as explaining how life evolved.* All that scientists can do is say that in the physical world as we see it, there is no providence involved - which is exactly what they say with all the other phenomena. Religious people can perceive God behind it, just as with the Purim story, the lottery of Israel, the creation of the State of Israel, etc.

Amazingly, even Thomas Henry Huxley, the principle defender of Darwinism, acknowledged that "…there is a wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of evolution… The teleological and mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences and the more completely is he at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this primitive molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the actual phenomena of the universe… Evolution has no more to do with theism than the first book of Euclid has." ("On the reception of the Origin of Species," in Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ref. 160, Vol. 2, p. 179)

It is surprising, therefore, to find anti-evolutionists insisting that Darwinian evolution is ultimately blind and unplanned and denies God. Are they saying that if these processes were really responsible for evolution, then God could not be involved? This is certainly kefirah - rank heresy. And once one takes that approach, it means that God's role in the Purim story, the Israel lottery, and the State of Israel would also be denied, chas v'shalom. How ironic that the opponents of my work should be the ones to be the genuine kofrim!

There is another possibility. Maybe these anti-evolutionists are not saying that God could not work via Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. Maybe they agree that God certainly could work through these evolutionary mechanisms, but they are simply saying that, according to the scientists who propose evolution, God was not involved.

Now, that may well be true for many (but certainly not all) scientists, but what difference does it make? After all, these same scientists would say that God was not involved in the events of the Purim story, the lottery via which the Land of Israel was divided, the survival of the Jewish People over millennia of persecution, and the creation of the State of Israel. But we do not see that as reason to deny the existence of these phenomena, or the historical/ scientific processes via which they occurred! We simply say that the physical, material processes are as described by scientists and historians, but we see God behind it. If there are scientists/ historians who claim that their material explanations of these phenomena rule out a Creator, then we dispute their metaphysical conclusions, but not their explanations of the physical phenomena!

All this is explained at great length in my book The Challenge Of Creation. Which the anti-evolutionists have surely read. So are they heretics, or did they simply not understand what I wrote, or are they deliberately disingenuous?

* Note: As I have made clear on numerous occasions, while my studies of zoology have led me to the conclusion that the evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming, I do not have this personal conviction regarding the adequacy of random mutation plus natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. I have many questions on it, but have never researched it carefully to discover if answers exist, for two reasons. One is that I just don't have the time to attain the necessary expertise to make an adequately informed judgment. The second reason is that it is simply irrelevant to me whether it is true or not, since there are no theological ramifications. But what is significant, and disturbing, is that despite my repeated statements that I have no personal conviction in the truth of these Darwinian explanations, several of my opponents (such as R. Coffer and Dr. Ostroff) repeatedly attribute this position to me. Perhaps this is to be relegated to the same shortcomings mentioned in the previous paragraph.

35 comments:

  1. So, are you saying that for a beliving person to accept neo-Darwinism, he must posulate that, when a genetic mutation that will eventually take over the population occurs, it only appears to be random, but is actually directed?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I recently came up with a slogan I'd love to plaster all over RBS B in response to their spate of anti-Zionists posters which summarizes what you're saying:

    Anti-Zionism is to the CREATION of the State of Israel
    AS
    Atheism is to the CREATION of the world.


    Problems is that they would never "get" it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Menachem G - that is one possibility. There are other approaches. It largely depends on how specific one sees providence as acting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I find this statement by Huxley
    "On the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a primordial molecular arrangement of which all the phenomena of the universe are the consequences and the more completely is he at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this primitive molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the actual phenomena of the universe"

    Remarkably similar to this one by Rav Hirsch

    "Rather, Judaism in that case would call upon its adherents to give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus, and one single law of “adaptation and heredity” in order to bring forth..."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think your greatest opponents are not the ones who oppose evolution because of the randomness aspect. Your greater opponents admit that HaShem could have created life through evolution, but they tell you in the name of Jewish Tradition that He did not do it this way. These are the people who "have the truth."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fair enough.But you have to admit that it's not so straightforward.

    ReplyDelete
  7. > "All that scientists can do is say that in the physical world as we see it, there is no providence involved - which is exactly what they say with all the other phenomena. Religious people can perceive God behind it..."

    I'd like to ask, "should people (or is it logically very reasonable to) perceive God behind it"? Can we apply our knowledge of probability and statistics to conclude that we should perceive God behind it"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. RS said:

    " All that scientists can do is say that in the physical world as we see it, there is no providence involved - which is exactly what they say with all the other phenomena. Religious people can perceive God behind it, just as with the Purim story"


    The question then reduces to WHY should one see G-d behind it rather than blind luck? I thought the answer lay, at least in part, to matters of probability. We see G-d, at least, in part because the particular outcomes we observe seem to contrived to have been simply the luck of the draw. And that is where the confusion over the term "random" comes in. Rabbi Slifkin is, I believe, using random to refer to a blind process that COULD, through its natural mechanism have resulted in the the observed reality, while others (myself included) see the term "random" as having connotations of equi-probability (which the term "random" does not technically require) which seem innapproriate for a process which resulted in something so seemingly designed.

    By way of simple example, if I pick up a seemingly ordinary penny and say, "G-d, if you're listening, let me flip 50 consecutive heads", and I then proceed to flip 50 consecutive heads, I could still technically describe that outcome as the result of a random process, but that would not be what most of us think of as "random".

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Maybe these anti-evolutionists are not saying that God could not work via Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. Maybe they agree that God certainly could work through these evolutionary mechanisms, but they are simply saying that, according to the scientists who propose evolution, God was not involved."

    That is not the crux of the issue. What scientists (correctly) say is that a god is not necessary to explain the origin of the species. And, applying Occam's razor they thus do not invoke one. They're not ruling out the involvement of one (and couldn't possibly!), they're just obviating the need for one. This, while in biology, is no different from how astronomy removed the need for supernatural explanations to explain the planets apparent motion (something even Newton himself didn't fully manage).

    And, as a pragmatic matter, once people have an sufficient natural explanation in hand, even if it—as it always must—does not rule out supernatural involvement, people start to drop the unnecessary explanation. Just because it isn't philosophically excluded (e.g. with the planets) doesn't mean people will keep it around. That's why (if you look closely) the ID movement is about explicitly repudiating the sufficiency of naturalistic evolution as a mechanism (cf. "irreducible complexity," etc.). ID is not trying to attack common descent, but rather the point that you left out of your post: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The analogy to astronomy is a good one. One of Rambam's mistakes was to claim that there is no scientific explanation for the paths of the stars and planets, and to use this as proof for a Creator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So in the end, if I understand the post and the comments thus far correctly, science has shown that there is no NEED for God in order to explain everything that exists; but we BELIEVE that God is behind it all. Despite the fact that this belief is not at all necessary to understand everything in nature. So isn't this belief non-rationalist (not anti-rationalist, just non-rationalist)?

    If that is true, then I think you should clarify your definition as to the heart of your ideology: you know what exists and how it exists based upon rationalism. This rationalism has nothing to do with God. You believe that God is behind everything, and this belief has nothing to do with rationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't agree. In The Challenge of Creation I quote many scientists who feel that the laws of science themselves are so remarkable that a Bigger Explanation is called for. Some invoke an infinite number of universes; but it's just as reasonable to invoke God.

    But the point is that the Argument from Design is being applied to the laws of science themselves, NOT to specific phenomena that they produce.

    ReplyDelete
  13. May I request that we don't get sidetracked here, and wait to hear from the anti-evolutionists as to how they wriggle out of this one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I don't agree. In The Challenge of Creation I quote many scientists who feel that the laws of science themselves are so remarkable that a Bigger Explanation is called for."

    What that means that we do not yet have a sufficient naturalistic explanation for the laws of physics. That is true; we don't. However, you'll notice that I specifically wrote regarding "the origin of species" in my comment, which is in fact what this post is about. Or do you disagree that science has a naturalistic explanation that is fully sufficient to explain the origin of species?

    Our lack of an explanation for the laws of physics doesn't seem to prevent you from acknowledging the lack of need for a god involved in the planet's motions—so why would it regarding evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. Regarding the origins of life, it can go either way from both both a theological and scientific viewpoint. Regarding the development (evolution) of life, there can be a fully naturalistic explanation, just as with astronomy. And, just as with astronomy, whether one sees life as attesting to a a Creator depends on one's perspective. Personally I feel that if the laws of nature are such that they result in the incredible diversity of life that we see, with all its extraordinary phenomena, then this cries out for a Bigger Explanation - for which I invoke God.

    Have you read my book? I explain all this in much more detail there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. > By way of simple example, if I pick up a seemingly ordinary penny and say, "G-d, if you're listening, let me flip 50 consecutive heads", and I then proceed to flip 50 consecutive heads, I could still technically describe that outcome as the result of a random process, but that would not be what most of us think of as "random".

    That’s true, but that’s mostly due to most people not really knowing how probability works. In very large samples, you should get about 50% heads and 50% tails. In smaller samples, runs of heads or tails are likely. It’s actually more probable to have a series of HHTTTTTHHHTTHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHTHTTTT
    Than a series that goes HTHHTTHHTHT…

    > Personally I feel that if the laws of nature are such that they result in the incredible diversity of life that we see, with all its extraordinary phenomena, then this cries out for a Bigger Explanation - for which I invoke God.

    While you’re entitled to your feelings, the strictly rational approach here would be to say, “I don’t know what the Bigger Explanation is.”

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can we apply our knowledge of probability and statistics to conclude that we should perceive God behind it"?
    ======================
    Not as a slam dunk - correlation is statistical, causation is in the mind.
    KT
    Joel Rich (who makes his living from a profession based on the belief that mortality is a random variable)

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am an evolutionist.

    But the anti-evolutionists are correct in understanding that the whole "beauty" of the theory of evolution is that it renders God unnecessary. He could be there or not, but there is no necessity to postulate his existence.

    Therefore, they are justified in attacking proponents of evolution such as us who completely undercut the faith.

    The middle ground that accepts both evolution and faith in a providential God is nisht a here, nisht a derr.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But this is no more true of evolution than astronomy or any other branch of science. (I am talking about the science itself, not what certain people associated with the science say about it.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. G3 said:

    "It’s actually more probable to have a series of HHTTTTTHHHTTHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHTHTTTT
    Than a series that goes HTHHTTHHTHT…"

    I'm not sure where you're going here.

    If the question is the before the fact probability of any one particular resulting sequence of N flips as compared with any other ONE particular sequence of N flips, then all such results are equiprobable before the fact.

    My scenario was the before the fact probability of 50 straight heads in 50 flips as compared with all the other possible sequences, and the probability of that was less than 1 in 10^15

    Yes, it was no less likely than any one of the other 10^15 possible outcomes but it was the one outcome that I identified before the fact as being significant to me, so it would be an exceedingly good bet that G-d was indeed listening.

    ReplyDelete
  21. LAWRENCE KAPLAN COMMNENTS:

    Rabbi Slifkin: You misunderstand Maimonides. He uses the fact that (in his day) there was no scientific explanation for the paths of stars and planets as a dialectical argment (not demonstrative proof) for creation out of nothing. This is separate from the issue of the existence of the Creator. This, of course, is not to justify his methodology.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rav Slifkin,

    If I might point out, regarding your books. Paul Davies, whom I recall you rely very heavily on for the argument of scientific diesim, has substantially changed his position, to reflect new hypotheses in cosmology.

    I recall, while reading your book (Challenge) being disappointed in your outdated presentation of Davis's position. "The Mind of God" is out of date, and no longer reflects the limits of Cosmology.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The middle ground that accepts both evolution and faith in a providential God is nisht a here, nisht a derr.

    We accept medical science, take lifesaving medicine as perscribed by doctors, but still have faith that G-d guides the outcome. We do not (as some very extreme people of faith do) refuse lifesaving medical treatment and say that we believe that G-d will heal us and we do not need science.

    When we take a medical treatment which has a 95% chance of healing according to medical science, we attribute the healing to G-d. And if the healing does NOT occur, we attribute that to G-d as well, but we then go in search of another medical treatment that medical science says has a very high percentage of healing. (And we pray that it works, which is where our faith comes in.)

    We take the "middle ground" which involves both accepting medical science, and believing that the outcome is ultimately guided by G-d. Why can't we do the same with evolutionary science?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nes Nigluy
    Miracles vary in how clearly they show G-d's hand. A nes nistar, like purim, remains hidden to many. A nes nigluy shows much more the direct Hand of G-d. Only amalek could deny it. It is reasonable to assume that the creation of the world itself is not just a nes nistar, but a more direct Hand of G-d. This is the implication of the pesukim and chazal and the way all Jews understood it for thousands of years. It is definetly not a theologically problematic view!
    Even Nistar
    In addition, even if creation followed a path that was closer to a nes nistar, this does not mean everything appears completely random. One should objectively recognize that the Hand of G-d was guiding events. Those who wish to portray such events as entirely random are wrong, and that is not what should be taught in schools. This would apply to the Purim story, to the founding of Israel and surely to the creation of life. I.e. like ID.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1)Evolution only becomes a discussion after there is the very first substance (whether it be matter or energy); I never understood why it can't be the vehicle G-d used to bring things to their current state.

    2) Evolution being able to explain how things could possibly get to their current state without having a Higher Intelligence guiding things does not mean it is more likely to have developed w/o that guidance than with it. It is theoretically possible for a bird pecking at birdseed spilled on a keyboard to write a novel, but not very likely for a novel to have been written without the words being purposely chosen by a writer.

    3) The "phenomena of the universe" being more easily explained by a Guiding Hand is but one factor in trying to determine if there is a Creator. There are numerous other "phenomena" that are more easily explained if there is a Creator (Who is still involved with His creation); our nation's survival is but one of those other factors. Puting all of those factors together, the liklihood of our traditions being true increases exponentially.

    4) I get the sense that the "anti-evolutionists" are so afraid that adjusting what they consider to be the traditional model will wreck havoc on the whole system (or at least on many that follow the system), that they cannot accept any adjustments at all.

    5) Just as it is unreasonable for anti-evoltionists to insist that all frum Jews must reject evolution, it is unreasonable for those who accept the possibility that G-d used evolution to "create" the world we know to insist that those who reject evoltion must change their minds. The important thing is fulfilling His will (keeping the mitzvos of the Torah as understood and developed by Chazal and Razal); how G-d created the environment within which to do so is only important inasmuch as it helps us to understand Him.

    ReplyDelete
  26. G3 wrote: "While you’re entitled to your feelings, the strictly rational approach here would be to say, “I don’t know what the Bigger Explanation is.”"

    But we do also have a Torah. So that has to get weighed in somewhere, does it not? The "pure skepticism" calling itself "strictly rational" seems a bit of a diversion.

    If certain people will label anything unproven a "non-rational" belief, then believing in God in that sense would also have to be called non-rational using that definition of terms. But the mistake, in my humble opinion, resides in people expecting there to be proof of God. I don't think there is or can be such proof, by definition...

    ReplyDelete
  27. "...actual phenomena of the universe… Evolution has no more to do with theism than the first book of Euclid has." Thomas Henry Huxley

    I like how Huxley refers to the "doctrine" of evolution, rather than the "theory" of evolution. (His quote can be seen in full, here:
    http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/Book/Recep.html )

    He also writes, "That is the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith" -- but that's another story

    ReplyDelete
  28. zohar wrote: "But the anti-evolutionists are correct in understanding that the whole "beauty" of the theory of evolution is that it renders God unnecessary. He could be there or not, but there is no necessity to postulate his existence.

    Therefore, they are justified in attacking proponents of evolution such as us who completely undercut the faith."

    But that's only true if "The Faith" consists of necessity of postulating God's existence (and due to lack of scientific understanding of a given subject), or what you didn't bring up - a proof for God's existence. But it would seem to me that is not the nature of "the faith."
    Specifically, for starters, that is not how Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg ZT"L describes emunah in his essay in l'frakim. And I'm sure there are many more examples. I point to that specifically because he says real emunah is not achieved by philosophical proofs.

    Food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I present this simply for your interest:

    Can_you_be_a_darwinist_and a_theist?

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/can_you_be_a_darwinist_and_a_t_1039281.html

    ReplyDelete
  30. There are several different varieties of "anti-evolutionist".

    For most, the most basic problem with evolution is not that it represents an "invalid" method of creation. Of course, God could have chosen any method method of creation that He wished. The difficulty is that, in the end, He chose to reveal to us, in admittedly vague terms, what His process of creation was. This is the Biblical narrative of creation.

    It is obvious that this narrative does not make a good fit with the scientific narrative of creation, especially evolution. Attempts to make the two narratives fit are possible, but tend to be very contrived and have only the vaguest connection to traditional interpretations.

    The other alternative is to interpret the narrative of creation as almost pure allegory. This clearly flies in the face of the traditional interpretation and creates a host of additional problems.

    Thus, most Jewish opponents of evolution are motivated not by philosophical concerns but by the - apparent - conflict between evolutionary theory and the Biblical narrative.

    Another major factor that motivates Jewish opponents to evolution is the Argument from Design. Although the Argument from Design is not (explicitly) Biblical, and is certainly not fundamental to Judaism, over time it became a basic component of Jewish thought, playing a major role in many Jewish philosophical works.

    The theory of evolution is a strong challenge to the Argument from Design and, as such, is a problem for those who base their thinking on these works.

    A third component in the Jewish opposition to evolution is the fact that evolution has become an icon for ideological atheism. It is, in effect, a secular "idol", and religious Jews like to "smash" idols. (After all, Abraham was the original iconoclast.)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I identified with your post, LazerA. I might add another option. Perhaps some Jews are quote-unquote antievolutionists because they've been hanging around the Discovery Institute website and, simply, find that their arguments quite often knock the wind out of their opponents' sails.

    For example, Nature published their 15 Evolutionary Gems in 2009:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf?gclid=CMuynbKpuZgCFQaA3godSxLYZQ

    and the Discovery folks addressed each one:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/evaluating_natures_2009_15_evo036991.html

    That was not an endorsement of Discovery. I've seen, in other essays of theirs, that some of their arguments aren't good. But overall, I can see why people think they do a good job arguing against these "top fifteen" evidences of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Here's an interesting link about the Discovery folks:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php

    ReplyDelete
  33. You've been hanging around Pharyngula? And I thought I felt guilty hanging around the Discovery site.

    Anyway, here's a quote I think you'll like:

    "Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch, D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings : Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1996, pp.187-188)]

    ReplyDelete
  34. I was so glad to read this post. Only days before you put it up, I had responded to a comment on another blog with the following. It's good to see others tackle the concept of randomness in theology, anyway. Kol hakavod!

    I think that there is a dangerous myth that randomness as a concept or phenomenon stands somehow more on its own and independent of Hashem than other aspects of the world. Hardly so. Some of our most accurate physics to date suggests that at a very root level, all of physical existence involves random interactions. Still, I have not once heard a religious Jew express misgivings about probability theory, quantum theory, day school raffles, or almost every children's board game on the grounds that they are based on randomness. Why should evolution be different?

    It was the view of the Baal Shem Tov that "not a leaf falls in the forest" without Hashem's direct will. Granted, his view of hashgocha pratit differs dramatically from that of the Rambam or that of the Ramban. Still, his view is clearly based one one view found in the gemara, and it is a view that understands randomness not as a power unto itself independent of Hashem, but instead as a revelation of Hashem's will. Fine, in our little four-dimensional world, the roll of the dice, fall of a leaf, or mutation of a genome may be truly random by mathematical definition. But to Hashem?

    I would put forth that this view has a clear grounding in the Tanakh. The division of Eretz Yisrael itself was to take place by the drawing of lots, a random method. Yet, lest one think that the randomness was independent of Hashem's will, we had the Urim and Tumim to confirm the choices. Randomness and lots play a large roll in Megillat Esther, of course. The sailors with Yonah usedlots. The Yom Kippur goats. The selection of Shaul. All based on randomness. All fully considered Hashem's will.

    If we could all somehow get over our elevation of randomness as a power unto itself, evolution might seem a lot less frightening to a lot more orthodox Jews, no?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I do not have this personal conviction regarding the adequacy of random mutation plus natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. I have many questions on it, but have never researched it carefully to discover if answers exist, for two reasons. //, I do not have this personal conviction regarding the adequacy of random mutation plus natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. I have many questions on it, but have never researched it carefully to discover if answers exist, for two reasons. One is that I just don't have the time to attain the necessary expertise to make an adequately informed judgment. The second reason is that it is simply irrelevant to me whether it is true or not, since there are no theological ramifications."

    There are no theological ramifications?! Surely there are, ramifications that address important points in this very post. It depends what the question is. If the question is literal understanding of bereishit, then there are no ramifications to the mechanism by which evolution proceeds. However, if random mutation and natural selection are not the mechanism of evolution, the alternative is a model that is teleogical, that argues strongly for design, and does not reflect chance (which you once argued is theologically preferable to arguments from design). Surely you are not now arguing seriously that there are no theological ramifications to the issue of whether evolution takes place via random mechanisms or strongly points to design..!!!

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.