David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 178 (2):381 - 396 (2011)
The distinguished theologian, David Ray Griffin, has advanced a set of thirteen theses intended to characterize (what he calls) "Neo-Darwinism" and which he contrasts with "Intelligent Design". Griffin maintains that Neo-Darwinism is "atheistic" in forgoing a creator but suggests that, by adopting a more modest scientific naturalism and embracing a more naturalistic theology, it is possible to find "a third way" that reconciles religion and science. The considerations adduced here suggest that Griffin has promised more than he can deliver. On his account, God is in laws of nature; therefore, any influence He exerts is natural rather than supernatural. But if the differences God makes are not empirically detectable, then Griffin's account is just as objectionable as a theory of supernatural intervention. And Griffin has not shown that evolution as distinct from his idiosyncratic sense of Neo-Darwinism is incompatible with theism
|Keywords||Neo-Darwinism Intelligent design Evolution Natural selection Scientific naturalism Naturalistic theology David Ray Griffin Science Religion Supernaturalism Charles Darwin The ethics of belief Experiential findings Abductivism Inference to the best explanation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
James H. Fetzer (2002). Propensities and Frequencies: Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 132 (1-2):27 - 61.
James H. Fetzer (1983). Probability and Objectivity in Deterministic and Indeterministic Situations. Synthese 57 (3):367--86.
David L. Hull (1978). A Matter of Individuality. Philosophy of Science 45 (3):335-360.
Ernst Mayr (1988). Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert C. Neville (2008). A Letter of Grateful and Affectionate Response to David Ray Griffin's Whitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy. Process Studies 37 (1):7-38.
James Griffin, Roger Crisp & Brad Hooker (eds.) (2000). Well-Being and Morality: Essays in Honour of James Griffin. Oxford University Press.
Reed Richter (2002). What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
S. Matthew Liao (2010). Agency and Human Rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (1):15-25.
David Basinger (1984). Griffin and Pike on Divine Power. Philosophy Research Archives 10:347-352.
David Ray Griffin (1988). On Ian Barbour's Issues in Science and Religion. Zygon 23 (1):57-81.
Jaegwon Kim (1999). Physicalism and Panexperientialism: Response to David Ray Griffin. Process Studies 28 (1-2):28-34.
Frank B. Dilley (2001). David Ray Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts (SUNY Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought). [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (3):197-200.
Yingjin Xu (2011). What Does Fodor's “Anti-Darwinism” Mean to Natural Theology? Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (3):465-479.
David Ray Griffin (2001). Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion. Cornell University Press.
Added to index2009-04-20
Total downloads62 ( #26,152 of 1,099,936 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #40,772 of 1,099,936 )
How can I increase my downloads?
|Start a new thread||There is 1 thread in this forum|
University of California, Berkeley
James Fetzer’s recent article, “Evolution and atheism: Has Griffin reconciled science and religion?” (Synthese  178: 381-396) purports to offer a well-founded critique of David Ray Griffin’s philosophical arguments for “a version of theistic evolutionism that can do justice both to the facts that count in favor of evolution and those that count against the neo-Darwinian theory of it” (Griffin, 2000, p 243). Fetzer claims that Griffin’s detailed characterization of neo-Darwinism is inaccurate, “exemplifying the straw man fallacy, where an exaggerated version of a position is presented in order to knock it down” (p. 382). Fetzer not only makes strong claims for the inadequacy of Griffin’s work on evolutionary theory, but also asserts that Griffin has made fundamental errors of logic and argument and is not “morally justified” in holding the views he propounds. Fetzer’s article, however, fails to back up these claims.
Amazingly, Fetzer does not provide any evidence that he has actua ... (read more)