Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

EVOLUTION
by accident
or
by design
?

   Post 86. June 12, 2019

  Designed To Evolve

   Progressive Creationism

 This is one of several recent books that are intended to reconcile pragmatic Science and romantic Religion. Most of them present an interpretation of empirical evidence that is loosely compatible with liberal (non-fundamentalist) attitudes toward scriptural doctrines. Since the BothAnd philosophy also presents a case for consilience of the materialistic modern worldview and the spiritualistic ancient perspective, I found the book to be a good read. Such open-minded accommodation, however, requires a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between Reality and Ideality. And that is exactly what my own Enformationism worldview was intended to describe. Although his book is supposed to be an even-handed treatment, the author’s ultimate loyalty to the Christian Bible is revealed in the final “spin” of his re-interpretations.

Here, I’ll quote some of his relevant assertions, along with my own idiosyncratic “twist”. He begins with an overview of current Cosmology, and finds some parallels to the Genesis account of creation. He also accepts the general thrust of evolutionary theory, but still finds ways for God to be in “continual control” of the process. This may sound like the theory of “intelligent design”, but his version attempts to be more rigorously scientific. It’s also analogous to my own theory of Intelligent Evolution, except for Davis’s adherence to the belief that the Torah was a scientifically correct account of history, when interpreted in view of its contemporary context. That frame of reference simply used figures of speech appro-priate for the times, but which may sound strange in a modern scientific context. I don’t agree with his “spin” though, since those metaphors seem to be intended to be taken literally1 by the illiterate masses, and are still accepted as such today.

The following quotes (with my commentary) are taken from his analysis of various worldviews relevant to the controversy between Science & Scripture, and to the validity of Darwinism or Genesis :

Principal World Views

 “There are a number of ways to view the whole of reality.   A complete view of the cosmos requires both the scientific and the spiritual perspective.   Even if your viewpoint denies one of these, that denial defines your viewpoint.   A world view defines not only the way you conceive the world but also your values, goals, and lifestyle.   It represents the filter by which you interpret the world around you.   Here is a brief overview of the major world views as applied to origins.”

• I agree with his assessment of these various interpretations of how the world came to be as it is today. But I may quibble with a few of his opinions that seem to be slanted in favor of biblical literalism.

Naturalism, Agnosticism, Deism

 “Many naturalists are unaware of the scientific evidence for God or prefer to explain away this evidence by chance. Some will support ideas like that of a multiverse to back up their view. Though the evidence is lacking for these theories, they expect that the evidence will one day be found. This could be called a "science of the gaps" position since the currently available and proven science points to a creator.” 2

Post 86 continued . . . click Next

Designed to Evolve
Discovering God Through Modern Science

by Christopher S. Davis Kindle Book (2015)

I haven't been able to find any background on the author. My best guess is that it might be the C.S. Davis, Archaeologist at University of Illinois, Chicago. Whatever, he seems to be well-informed in all branches of science.

https://www.amazon.com/Designed-Evolve-Discovering-through-Science-ebook/dp/B00RZ8V7CA

1. Ancient & Modern     Realities :
   My assumption is that ancient priests & scribes were just as intelligent as modern scientists. The primary difference is that they didn’t have the tools for empirical discovery of how the world works on the level below superficial appear-ances. The facts they recorded in their official documents were mostly intuitive & imaginative, rather than rational & empirical.    Both modern and ancient thinkers must fit their facts into the generally accepted paradigm of reality of their time & place. For example, Spiritualism was intellectually rigorous in its day & place.
   Presumably, the deep thinkers of long-ago were aware that their concrete analogies (humanoid deities) were merely useful fictions for concepts beyond our rational understanding. Unfortunately, the laity would “use” those emotionally accessible metaphors as-if real and factual. Consequently, the literal meanings were found “useful” for manipulating the masses.

2. Cover-up of the Gaps :
   In his book, The Idea of the World, Bernardo Kastrup, attributes the Naturalist (physicalist) worldview to psychological “compensation” for some subconscious personal defect. Apparently, Supernaturalism challenges their ego on a deep emotional level.
   But, of course, that “weak personality” accusation can easily be turned around the other way. Naturalists often explain the attraction of other-worldly Spiritualism as an ego protection scheme. Perhaps both are true to some extent. But I prefer to avoid Freudian name-calling.