Bradley Monton Interview

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Neil B ♪ says:

    This piece by Andrew Sullivan is very interesting, on purpose in evolution:
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/robert-wright-against-jerry-coyne.html#more
    Very cogent writing, quite detachable from any other opinions of his you may have less sympathy for. I think he’s basically right. The Cambrian, …, Cretaceous etc. and their denizens are real as rain. I think the intelligence went into the design of the universe itself, not “meddling” (but thanks to someone, the OP?, for the quote about higher-order fine-tuning being a way to make things happen without peculiar breaks in natural order. But as I keep telling David Heddle, there’s nothing wrong with looking for loose ends and quirks in the process itself. And most of us want to ask; what does it mean, what does the source of it all want for us and from us.

    BTW, no customer reviews yet at Amazon for Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, readers here can try to be first.

    mystical Captcha watch: … initiate!

  2. Charlie says:

    Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution is an excellent look at the kind of non-interventionist ID that can be invisioned. He was no atheist but neither was Wallace a Christian. He was every bit as scientifically inclined, and in many cases moreso, as his atheist contemporaries who put him on the back shelf in favour of the lesser naturalist, Darwin, and it was his investigation of nature that led him to reject the random/chance version of evolution. His rejection grew stronger as the “codiscoverer of natural selection” learned more. He thought the evidence clearly demonstrated the work of a Supreme Overruling Intelligence.
    In Wallace’s view the Supreme Intelligence could act to “constitute the substance of our universe that it would afford the materials and best conditions for the development of life; and also, under the simple laws of variation, increase and survival, would automatically lead to the maximum of variety, beauty and use for man.”

  3. Charlie says:

    ps.
    My comment has little or nothing to do with the OP and the decent-introduction it gives to Monton’s book and point of view.
    That does list a few atheistic philosophers who are open to ID. Wasn’t that a question debated here recently?

  4. Charlie says:

    Hi Tom,
    The Truth Holds Us thread has not been loading for me the last couple of days.
    Is it just me?

  5. david ellis says:

    Yeah, it seems to have disappeared.

  6. Tom Gilson says:

    It’s back now. I’m not sure how I did it, but apparently I changed its status to “draft” without realizing it.