Some Discussion Questions, week of February 4



Some Discussion Questions, week of February 4

1. How is Darwin’s view different from Lamarckian evolution (Mayr in CP, p. 40)?

2. Can evolutionary biology be reduced to the laws of chemistry and physics? Is Mayr right that it cannot be (p. 40)? Is Mayr right that “Darwin does away with determinism”? (p. 42)

3. I would classify five possible positions. Do you see any others?

a. young-earth creationism;

b. old-earth creationism (Johnson; Discovery Institute);

c. theistic evolution (Collins’ “BioLogos”)

d. Darwinism generally

e. Atheistic evolutionism (Dawkins, etc.)

4. How might pleiotropy (Johnson in Appleman, p. 582) be used by Darwinists to make their theory non-falsifiable and why does Johnson think that would be a major flaw in the theory?

5. Very important: distinguish naturalism or metaphysical materialism (or “philosophical materialism” Scott in Appleman, p. 589) from methodological materialism. Does Darwinism necessarily imply metaphysical materialism? Or is Scott right (p. 591) that “Johnson confuses the necessary methodological materialism (or naturalism) of science with philosophical materialism/naturalism” ?

6. Johnson claims (p. 585), “Scientific naturalism [starts]… with the assumption that science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable guide to knowledge.”

7. Is Johnson right that “The absence from the cosmos of any Creator is therefore the essential starting point for Darwinism”? On this view Collins would have to be an anti-Darwinist. Why isn’t he?

8. Johnson writes (p. 585) that “a ‘creationist’ is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose? Does this make Collins a creationist? Why does Collins not accept Johnson’s definitions that would make him a creationist and not a Darwinist?

9. Does the debate have any implication for the existence of moral values?

a. Consider that Scott (p. 586) summarizes Johnson as believing that if Darwinism is true, “life would have no meaning, and moral and ethical systems would have no foundation.”

b. Consider Collins (p. 195):

“Must we accept the Dawkins perspective: ‘the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’? May it never be so!”

10. Is the existence of altruism a good argument against atheistic Darwinism?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download