Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Join ASA or sign up
Sign In
Sign In securely

Boston Chapter Christmas Gathering

1/8/2018 » 1/12/2018
Defend Apologetics Conference, New Orleans, LA

Human Identity, Paris, France

2018 Winter Day Conference—So. Cal. Christians in Science

1/30/2018 » 1/31/2018
“Darwin's Doubt and The Return of the God Hypothesis,” Waxahachie, TX

Musings of the ASA Director Emeritus
Blog Home All Blogs
This blog compiles the occasional musings of Randy Isaac who was ASA Executive Director from 2005 to 2016 and is now ASA Director Emeritus.


Search all posts for:   


Top tags: Larson  On Faith and Science  Ruse  Ellis  Emergence  Mind  evolution  concordism  faith  science  annual meeting  ASA  Evolutionary Creation  human evolution  Physics  theistic evolution  2016  anthropocene  computers  cosmological constants  cosmos  Darwinism  Dictionary  Ellisretirement  fine tuning  fossils  genius  Gondwana  hawking  human ancestry 

Theistic Evolution: Goals of the book

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Two of the editors of Theistic Evolution, Steve Meyer and Wayne Grudem, helpfully provide a “General Introductions” section at the beginning of the book. In 45 pages, they offer a synopsis of all thousand pages. It is a good way to understand the essence of the message before looking at the details in the remaining pages.

On pages 64 and 65 of the book, Wayne Grudem offers this summary of the goals of the book:

“Our goal in this book is to say to our friends who support theistic evolution, and to many others who have not made up their minds about this issue,

1. that recent scientific evidence presents such significant challenges to key tenets of evolutionary theory that no biblical interpreter should think that an evolutionary interpretation of Genesis is “scientifically necessary”;

2. that theistic evolution depends on a strictly materialistic definition of science that is philosophically problematic; and

3. that the Bible repeatedly presents as actual historical events many specific aspects of the origin of human beings and other living creatures that cannot be reconciled with theistic evolution, and that a denial of those historical specifics seriously undermines several crucial Christian doctrines.”

My response is as follows:

1.       A. All scientific challenges of evolutionary theory concern the details of mechanisms and specific applications and none has yet arisen concerning the basic overarching theory. To the contrary, a tremendous amount of evidence for the basic theory of evolution has been amassed and its foundation is stronger than ever. B. I do not know of anyone advocating an “evolutionary interpretations of Genesis.” All that is sought is an accurate biblical hermeneutic that reflects the truth. While the truth of evolution may be helpful in some way, there is no evolutionary interpretation per se.

2.       No theistic evolutionist I know thinks that it depends on a strictly materialistic definition of science. The scientific data are vast and compelling independent of a strictly materialistic definition of science. A proper theistic definition of science does just fine.

3.       Grudem’s presupposition here is fundamental concordism, in which the Biblical message must correspond to modern science. I do not know of any biblical passage that teaches such concordism. The basis for concordism is no more than human imagination of how biblical inspiration might have occurred. A more proper presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant revelation of God to us and that its theological message is inerrant, using phenomenological language understandable by all people of all ages, and specifically the cosmology accepted in the era in which it was written. No contradiction to evolution is evident.


Clearly, I have made many assertions that I will need to explain and justify in future posts as we address various specific chapters in the book. Stay tuned.

Tags:  concordism  evolution  Evolutionary Creation  faith  science  theistic evolution 

Share |
PermalinkComments (3)

Larson&Ruse Bibliographic Essay: Where to Look from Here

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Monday, December 11, 2017

At the end of their book, Larson and Ruse include a most helpful bibliographic essay. Far more informative than a mere listing of works, they comment and put in perspective a few key seminal works related to each chapter. This alone is worth the price of the book for anyone doing serious research on faith and science.


This concludes the series of comments and excerpts I gathered while reading the book. I would be most grateful if some of the few of you who actually read some of these posts might submit comments on what you see as most valuable—or not—in the book as you perceive it here. I will base my review on these notes. In deference to the priority of the publisher (PSCF) who commissioned this review, I will not post my review until it is published. Suffice it to say that I found the book very helpful. While not presenting any major new ideas, it collected a superb comprehensive view of several centuries of complex interactions between the science and faith communities. I will highly recommend it.

Tags:  Larson  On Faith and Science  Ruse 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Larson&Ruse Chapter 9--Living on Earth

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Monday, December 11, 2017

Ruse pens this concluding chapter of the book with a focus on life on earth. He opens with a quote from Pope Francis in his papal encyclical, Laudato Si. “Francis said of all humans that we are called upon ‘to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbors on a global scale…We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us.’”(p. 246)


Ruse continues with a six page concise summary of global warming. He is scientifically accurate and precise with a clear and understandable articulation of the historical and present-day knowledge of climate change. (p. 247-252)


Lynn White Jr.’s 1967 article in Science was a major milestone in viewing Christianity’s historical effect on the earth’s environment. But by now the flaws of his analysis have brought most of modern thinking to be closer to that of Pope Francis. The issues, pro and con, of how to understand and to cope with climate change are no longer science vs religion but pit religious and secular advocates vs religious and secular skeptics.


Ruse also discusses other religions, spending a significant amount of time on neo-Paganism, notably Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, and James Lovelock’s introduction of the Gaia hypothesis. “…Zell-Ravenheart’s spiritual roots are as deep as those of conventional Christians; indeed they are as deep as those of any religious belief system. Moreover, Gaia promotes as strong a call for environmental action as anything to emerge from more conventional religions…The Gaia hypothesis hovers in the borderland between science and religion, standing in stark contrast with modern developments in science.” (p. 268-269)


The book concludes with the following sentences: “The inhabitants of this earth face serious physical and social issues. Standing still and doing nothing is not an option. Hard thinking about the science and technology combined with deep moral seriousness and the religious conviction of believers are absolute requirements. Together with the realization that others, no less learned and no less serious, will come from other directions. No one should feel threatened by differences, nor should anyone quake and yield because there are differences. But if humans are in this together, sympathy and understanding are essential. Then perhaps we can move forward together.” (p. 276)

Tags:  Larson  On Faith and Science  Ruse 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Larson&Ruse Chapter 8--Eugenics, Genetics, and Playing God

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Monday, December 11, 2017

Larson now traces the sordid story of eugenics from its original proponent, Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, to its heyday in the early twentieth century.


“In fact, what Galton proposed was little more than plant or livestock breeding applied to people, which European royal families had practiced for years, but he made it sound scientific. It is amazing what an Oxford degree and a self-assured, upper-class manner can do to make utter claptrap seem true, especially to those who are inclined to believe it anyway.” (p. 214)


“Based on its spiritual commitment to the sanctity of all human life regardless of biological fitness, the Roman Catholic Church emerged as the first major organization to challenge eugenics doctrines.” (p. 218)


“Protestant opponents of eugenics generally did not articulate their position as clearly as Catholics, but it still had an impact…Taken as a whole, these objections reflected a view that God controls human reproduction, and neither science nor the state should interfere.” (p. 219)


“In response, eugenicists actively courted the favor of liberal clerics…God wouldn’t have given humans the power to enhance nature if it wasn’t for us to use, many maintained.” (P. 219)


“More than any issue at the time in Europe and America, eugenics rekindled perceptions of conflict between science and religion.” (p. 221)


“Eugenicists thought that they could easily identify hereditary disabilities…In fact, beginning in the 1930s, the scientific case for eugenics fell apart almost as fast as it had come together three decades earlier. First, social scientists reestablished the role of environmental factors in many of the conditions being subjected to eugenics. Then geneticists increasingly realized that…most genetic traits being targeted by eugenics involve multiple genes and thus could not be effectively propagated or prevented by eugenic selection. Finally, the specter of Nazi abuses discredited compulsory eugenic practices. By the 1950s, eugenics had seemingly been relegated to the dustbin of history or become the refuge of racists and mountebanks. Respectable geneticists no longer publically endorsed it, and its religious critics appeared vindicated. Indeed, may cited eugenics as an example for the ongoing value of religion to regulate science, with science establishing what could be done and religion guiding what should be done.” (p. 227)


“Biology may create a physical or mental condition, but only societies or individuals can interpret it as normal or abnormal, ability or disability. However much the modern Western mind favors “objective” scientific definitions of disability, cultural subjectivism inevitably intrudes.” (p. 228-229)


Larson then references Lutheran theologian Ted Peters, quoting his statement in the PBS series Faith and Reason, “So I hesitate to think of [DNA] as sacred, holy, special…If we have the power to alter it in such a way as to make human health better, to relieve human suffering, I think we have a moral responsibility to do that.” (p. 243-244)


“Under a theology such as Peters’s, genetic engineering, even of people, becomes a gift from God through science. Many geneticists embrace this view as well, but as a gift of a purely human scientific enterprise…Yet on this, at least for now, most scientists agree. It does not mark a conflict between science and religion as much as show common ground.” (p. 244)

Tags:  Larson  On Faith and Science  Ruse 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Theistic Evolution: A First Impression

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Friday, December 8, 2017

Although I’m somewhat late in completing a couple of committed book reviews, I’ll take the liberty of interrupting that process to share some musings on another book. November 30 was the publication date of this book:

J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, eds. Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

It is over a thousand pages long, of which 939 comprise the text with footnotes. I knew the book was coming and had already realized that I did not want to spend the time reading, let alone reviewing, this massive book. There are many other people more capable than I who will be doing that. But yesterday, a friend of mine gave me his free copy which he said he knew he would never read. As I flipped through the tome and read excerpts, I felt I wanted to share some thoughts and feelings. I would not ask any publisher to publish this but in this forum I feel free to say what I think. I hasten to add that all my comments are solely my personal opinions and do not in any way reflect the opinions of the ASA or anyone else. I also want to encourage any of you with differing views to share your comments. I learn much more from those of you who disagree with me than from those who share my opinions.

I will post some thoughts in the future about the content of the book. In this post I merely want to express my emotions at the existence of the book itself and what it says to me. In a tangible way, the book symbolizes a sharp repudiation of the effort for which I and many others have devoted so much time. We have urged that the core issues of the relationship between science and Christian faith be discussed freely with each other in a Christian spirit of civility and respect for one another. We have also held that science and Christian faith are inherently in harmony and we seek to understand that harmony in more depth. This book dispenses with all such attitudes and comes out swinging. It is an uncompromising attack on evolutionary creation, which I believe is now held by a majority of scientists who are Christians, though not by the broader non-scientific Christian community. The authors yield no slack for any other views and leave no door ajar for discussion. There is little evidence that effort was made to ensure that opposing views were included or were correctly articulated and addressed if they were. Even the title conveys a subtle message of antagonism. They authors are well aware that the term “evolutionary creation” has supplanted “theistic evolution” for more than a decade. Yet, they chose to continue with the older term, probably because it is more widely recognized but perhaps also because “theistic evolution” has been around long enough to attract an antagonistic reputation in the Christian community.

It didn’t have to be this way. The recently published book by BioLogos and Reasons to Believe is an excellent example:

Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos by Kenneth Keathley  (Editor),‎ J. B. Stump  (Editor),‎ Joe Aguirre (Editor)

Rather than simply publishing a book opposing the other viewpoints, these organizations, to their great credit, spent a great deal of time in personal discussion and in jointly writing their respect views. This is a demonstration of Christian love and respect that is a model for all of us. The ASA has always had a policy of not taking a stand on an issue for which there is honest disagreement among Christians. Its aim has been to encourage diversity of opinions among its members and to foster open discussion of differing views in spirit of love and civility. While not every interaction has measured up to its ideal, the organization continues to aim for constructive dialog. It is fair for those who oppose theistic evolution to publish their ideas. It is paramount that such attacks include an openness to respect other views and, preferably, to give voice to their response. No such attitude is apparent in a cursory look through the book. I hope to find some on a closer reading but the message is clear.

Personally, I find the book to be the final straw in showing the failure of what I worked hard to achieve in the ASA. When I became executive director in 2005, one of my high hopes and expectations was to find a way to bring the ID and anti-ID communities together in fruitful dialog with, at the very least, a measure of respect and continuing communication with each other. I worked hard, mainly in private with individuals but also in group settings, toward this end. But the task was daunting and positions hardened. Respect was in rare supply. We did manage to have some degree of ID participation in most of our annual meetings but the extent of personal mingling and follow-up discussion was generally meager.

This book will fuel the flames of the conflict model of science and Christian faith. Harmony is not to be found except on their own terms, redefining both science and the Bible. It sets back years of progress in understanding both science and the Bible. I am deeply saddened and I grieve at its publication. In some future posts, I will address the content of the book from selected portions but the tone of the book sets a major challenge before us all.

Tags:  evolution  Evolutionary Creation  faith  science  theistic evolution 

Share |
PermalinkComments (1)

Larson&Ruse Chapter 7--Sex and Gender

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Thursday, December 7, 2017

Here Ruse takes the lead but with several sections by Larson in recounting the historical perspectives on sex and gender, particularly regarding the relationship between the scientific and religious understandings.


Much of the human condition is portrayed in the first two chapters of Genesis. “First, humans come in two different kinds, male and female, and this is a fundamental distinction or difference…Second, the Bible is quite unambiguous about females’ and males’ relative statuses. Females and males are humans, and they are distinguished from the rest of creation in both being equally made in the image of God…Third, it is difficult to escape entirely the impression that some are more equal than others. The second version of the story has God creating Adam first and then almost as an afterthought creating Eve to keep Adam company.” (p. 186-187)


“In short, Judaism and Christianity are far more complex on the nature and status of women than one might suspect from a quick simplistic reading.” (p. 189)


Islam and Eastern religions also have a complex view on cultural issues such as gender relationships.


“Historically…the sciences serve to reinforce religion more than to challenge it.”(p. 193)


“…Darwin takes his Christian thinking, reads it into biology, and then happily reads it out again as confirmation of what he believed all along.” (p. 203)


“Does religion demand male and female? It’s hard to say, because it’s never really a question that comes up---“He created male and female.” Does biology demand male and female? Certainly not, because most organisms do not have sex. They are asexual and reproduce by budding or division and the like. Whatever the cause, it does seem that sex is a powerful tool of evolutionary change, however, and it is hard to imagine higher organisms having gathered together all of the genes that they need without sex.” (p. 203)


“…in the science and religion context, gender differences and sexual orientation raise overlapping issues and concerns. Both science and religion came to these topics with traditions in place, preferences set, and already formulated, culturally laden answers to intensely personal questions. New empirical findings emerged, once-established facts were reinterpreted or discounted, technologies and politics evolved, and new cultural norms and social practices emerged.” (p. 211)

Tags:  evolution  Larson  On Faith and Science  Ruse 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Larson&Ruse Chapter 6--The Evolution of Humanity

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Thursday, November 30, 2017

Larson takes a closer look at the details of Darwinism, focusing on applying it to humans. “Speaking from a historian’s perspective, however, the big issue has never been the theory of evolution in general, but applying it to humans. After all, many people care more about humans than they do about other animals. And who cares if plants evolved? But many people find the idea of descending from monkeys or being related to apes as really quite degrading to their self-image.” (p. 159)


“…even as mild-mannered an evangelical as Oxbridge scholar C. S. Lewis agreed that, while he accepted the theory of evolution, he too drew the line when Darwin began monkeying with man.” (p. 161)


“[Darwin’s letter to Asa Gray] passed quickly from observations of what seems evil in nature (such as cruel animal behavior) to their implications for what seems well-designed good in it (such as the human eye), and then moved on to ponder the origin of what seems positively good (such as human morality and mentality). Few Christians want to blame God for the first; many could go either way on God’s role in the second; but all want to attribute the third to their God.” (p. 165)


Larson proceeds to articulate concisely the sequence of discoveries of hominid fossils that documented what Darwin suggested. Throughout this history, the lines of demarcation were clear between those who were excited by and those who were frightened by “the prospect that humans evolved from beasts by a naturalistic process that goes back in some material cause-and-effect chain to earliest forms of life.” (p. 183)


“Today, Darwin’s sketchy social theories have matured by way of E. O. Wilson’s sociobiology and modern evolutionary psychology to become foundational for understanding in the social sciences. Through it, human behavior is reduced to the physical, and people become merely matter in motion with evolved self-consciousness.” (p. 183-184)

Tags:  evolution  Larson  On Faith and Science  Ruse 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Larson&Ruse Chapter 5--Darwinism and Belief

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Monday, November 27, 2017

Ruse devotes this chapter to the philosophical background and perspectives of Darwinism and religion in general. He finds it noteworthy that Darwinism, by which he simply means Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection, arose out of Western culture, springing up from a Jewish or Christian view of life rather than from a non-Western culture. He suggests three big questions that Christianity and Judaism (and Islam as well though it did not tie into the origin of Darwinism as much) try to answer.


1.      “Where did everything come from?” Ancient Greek philosophers didn’t ask that. Matter just is and there’s no point in asking about origins. “The ancient Hebrew people did think in terms of origins and beginnings, and Christians followed them in doing so. This is what Genesis is all about. God made the world and set it in motion. That is the answer to where things came from ‘in the beginning.’ Believers needed to know that is true. It is central to their theology.”

2.      “What kind of world do people live in?” This is not a question that everyone asks but most people have some degree of curiosity about the world we live in. “…ancient Babylonians typically saw it as a dreadful place dominated by gods who were at best indifferent to humans and at worst malicious.” (p. 139) Others see a wonderful world, cleverly put together. “It was Plato who drew the inference that such a beautifully functioning world could not be pure chance, there must be an intelligence (aka God) that lies behind it. Aristotle was more biologically minded than Plato. It was he who saw that it is in the living world of plants and animals than one really finds this intricate functioning, this designlike nature, which seems to be more than just random chance…And it is here that Christian theologian-philosophers, from Thomas Aquinas to William Paley, stepped in to make sense of it all. To them, the world does seem like it is designed, because it is designed---by an all-powerful, all-loving being---the God of Christianity.”(p. 140)

3.      “Where do humans fit into the scheme of things?” Though it is humans themselves who do the judging, it seems clear that “…humans are way ahead of all other organisms…a consciousness of their own existence and of a sense of morality and mortality far beyond that of any other kind of animal. They are not gods, but…made in the image of God and are given ‘dominion’ over the earth and all its nonhuman inhabitants.”(p. 140-141)


How did this pave the way for evolutionary perspectives? The scientific notions that came from astronomy and geology and paleontology changed the prevailing view of a static universe to one of directional change. As more evidence was obtained, there seemed to be progressive change over time, an idea that was tentatively extended to a new philosophy of progress. “Humans unaided except by their natural or endowed reason can make things better.” (p. 143) The vague idea of evolutionary change began to be more appropriate than stasis.


Evolutionary ideas, capped by Darwin’s seminal 1859 book, provided answers to all three questions, though the similarities were overshadowed by some key differences from the prevailing Christian views. The provocative answers continue to inflame discussions even today.


While the main focus is on the relationship between the major Western theistic religions and evolutionary thought, the question arises about other religions such as Buddhism. Similar to Hinduism and some other Eastern religions, Buddhism has little interest in the three big questions noted above. “Existence is eternal---always was and always will be.” (p. 151). Things just are, with no thing or no one responsible for anything or everything. The Buddhist will explore the nature of the world but that exploration is not about God. The world simply exists as it is. Humans are not the end result of progress but in the middle, above the vilest of beings but below the gods.


The problem of evil is one of the key dilemmas facing Christianity and Darwinism. For a Christian perspective, an all-powerful, all-good Creator is hard to reconcile with the existence of evil. Various scenarios abound but Darwinism exacerbates the issue by making natural evil (i.e. the predator/prey conflict and the struggle for existence in a Malthusian contest) the very engine of progress. Christians generally find some way of reconciling the existence of evil as a necessary aspect of the world that God created, enabling free will and humans capable of loving God.


Similarly, the clash between Providence and progress looms as a gulf between Darwinism and Christianity. The two are not easily reconciled. Yet, it is not an insurmountable difference.


“[I]nstead of being inevitable foes, Darwinism and Christianity might in some respects be compatible---or at least that was what the Christian Darwinist Asa Gray thought and said in his theory of theistic evolution…” (p. 158)

Tags:  Darwinism  Larson  On Faith and Science  Ruse 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Larson&Ruse Chapter 4--Rock, Fossil, God

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Monday, November 27, 2017

Once again Larson, the historian, returns to recount the history of geology as a preface to the coming revolution in biology.


“Before Cuvier, European naturalists typically held that no species---perfect in original creation---ever die out…Overturning this view, Curvier ultimately concluded that all fossilized animals differed in kind from modern ones and that no modern species existed in truly fossil form.”(p. 110)


Cuvier amassed evidence that fossils were of species that were not similar to any alive today. “To some, such evidence suggested evolution. Cuvier had already rejected this explanation based on his study of comparative anatomy by concluding that each type is too irreducibly complex to change, and the apparent absence of transitional forms in the fossil record confirmed this conclusion. In his extensive study of fossils, Cuvier saw only distinct species that persisted without change until they went extinct altogether at some remote time in the earth’s unimaginably long history.” (p. 113)


“Cuvier’s equation of the biblical deluge with the final catastrophe lost its principal scientific proponents in the 1830’s, when British geologists Adam Sedgwick and William Buckland, both evangelical Christian Oxbridge dons, concluded that a single flood of the type described in Genesis could not produce the complex deposits attributed to the last catastrophe and should have left human fossils, which were never found among its debris. Yet they drained the biblical deluge of geologic significance without drying up their Christian faith: the ages of creation simply moved back in time, more in line with the biblical account that places the days of creation before Noah’s time.” (p. 116)


“In his concept of steady-state volcanism…[James] Hutton proposed a cyclical process of igneous-rock mountains gradually rising from the earth’s molten core and then slowly weathering to create inhabitable land….[S]teady-state volcanism survived as a minority view that tempered the prevailing catastrophist, directional tone of early-nineteenth century geologic thought. Then in 1830, the English lawyer and gentleman geologist Charles Lyell gave it wings.” (p. 118-119)


“…Lyell refashioned Hutton’s cyclic outline of geologic history into a coherent scientific theory…Lyell saw long-term environmental change as gradual rather than abrupt and therefore posited that new species were created continuously rather than in spurts.” (p. 120-121)


William Buckland, an ordained Anglican cleric who obtained an Oxford readership in geology, flamboyantly described new fossils finds and built on Cuvier’s idea of directionality in the geological record. “Buckland’s God used systematic processes to guide terrestrial events with a designer’s touch; his God did not intervene irrationally…[T]he succession of species in the fossil record reflected God’s direction for life on earth. It had a beginning and human beings are its end…[H]e offered no specifics of how ‘the divinely endowed laws of creation’ might work except to affirm that they could not involve evolution.”(p. 128)


“In the half century since Cuvier and Werner came on the scene in the late 1700s, geology and paleontology had utterly transformed Western conceptions of the earth’s past and probable future…If ever there was a golden age of science and religion in Western Christendom, this was it. Neither side dominated or suppressed the other; both sides found inspiration from the relationship. For Christians, it required reinterpreting scripture to fit the advances of science. For scientists, it involved accepting the idea of divine design in nature.” (p. 131)


“The golden age ended abruptly…[T]he revival of evolutionism during the mid-1800s complicated the relationship between science and religion. The theory of human evolution became a flashpoint that could not be reconciled with the Genesis account as easily as Cuvier’s concepts of an ancient earth and geologic ages could.” (p. 132)


“…[N]ineteenth-century paleontology and geology offer a glimpse of what once was and again could be in the ongoing relationship between science and religion.” (p. 134)

Tags:  Larson  On Faith and Science  Ruse 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)

Larson&Ruse Chapter 3--The Brain, The Mind, and the Soul

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Friday, November 24, 2017

The philosopher picks up the pen again and sets out a survey of the mind-body issue in the history and philosophy of science. He covers the mind of Plato, the Cartesian mind, the mind of Darwinism, computers and the brain, and the “new mysterianism.”


“…this is a problem without a solution, or at least without a solution open to human intelligence….In respects, because of advances in science, especially advances in the physical sciences teaching that some questions simply cannot be asked because there are no possible answers available, this is perhaps a more attractive option in recent years than it was back at the time of Descartes….Perhaps the body-mind problem is like this. It goes almost without saying that this position –known today as "new mysterianism" - has its attractions for theists…Today, elements of such thinking can be found far and wide, including in the writings of that runaway favorite of the modern-day evangelical Christians, C. S. Lewis.”(p. 96-97)


“Some have suggested that invoking a hardware—software distinction avoids this problem. The brain is the hardware; the mind is the software. But the analogy doesn’t really work. A computer program and the stored files aren’t really conscious.”(p. 99)


“One thing that modern physics has taught is that the idea that the world is made up of inert chunks of basic substance, matter, is simply not true. Whatever may be the case down at the quantum level, there certainly are not simply minichunks of rock there. Matter is energized-dare one even say "alive" -in a way not dreamed of even in the nineteenth century. This certainly doesn't prove dualism; but it does mean that mind and matter may not be quite as far apart as they might have seemed to Descartes.”(p. 100)


In essence Ruse says that we have not made much progress since Plato except that we know vastly more than Plato about consciousness and how it is connected to the brain. But the hard problem of consciousness has not been solved.

Tags:  Larson  Mind  On Faith and Science  Ruse 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
Page 1 of 4
1  |  2  |  3  |  4