More on theistic evolution

| 0 Comments | 0 TrackBacks | View blog reactions

I mentioned that P.Z. Myers was not impressed with Romney's theistic evolution. Jason Rosenhouse has responded to Myers, and Myers has responded to the response.

For what it's worth, I think Rosenhouse has it almost right. Theistic evolution takes a standard, scientific understanding of evolution and adds God to provide direction and purpose to the process. Adding God is a metaphysical proposition, not a scientific one. There's no way to do an experiment to see whether a supernatural being lies behind natural processes.

Myers is right that adding God is not a “pro-science” position, but it's not anti-science either. Just as science is neutral about the existence of God, asserting that a supernatural being guides natural processes is neutral about the methods that scientists should use to understand natural processes.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1446

Leave a comment

 Subscribe in a reader

Recent Entries

A swine flu survey
Carl Zimmer points to a study on swine flu psychology that needs participants.As you have heard in the news, there…
Suppressing evidence
From Andy Revkin a few days ago.For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with…
Who does climate change hurt?
From the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University Based on a nationally representative survey of 2,164 American…
Nature Blog Network View blog authority