Comments on: Godless Embryologists http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/18/godless-embryologists/ A group blog of ASA members Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:24:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jon Tandy http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/18/godless-embryologists/comment-page-1/#comment-273 Jon Tandy Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:30:07 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=187#comment-273 Bill,  if you're asking about "in my cheek" or not, it was definitely intended as a humorous parody on the more familiar acronyms and philosophical positions respecting creation.  I also hoped that it might be useful to put the typically inflamed positions on creation into a different perspective.  Along with this, (based on what we at least think we know about embryology and human reproduction), I thought it could be a helpful analogy for those who aren't versed in the nuances of the various creation/evolution viewpoints, to put some perspective on why many people consider the old earth creation or theistic evolution positions to be rationally acceptable or even satisfying within a Christian worldview.  This analogy has been kicked around on the ASA mailing list before; I just formulated it into a particular narrative. Jon Tandy Bill,  if you’re asking about “in my cheek” or not, it was definitely intended as a humorous parody on the more familiar acronyms and philosophical positions respecting creation.  I also hoped that it might be useful to put the typically inflamed positions on creation into a different perspective. 

Along with this, (based on what we at least think we know about embryology and human reproduction), I thought it could be a helpful analogy for those who aren’t versed in the nuances of the various creation/evolution viewpoints, to put some perspective on why many people consider the old earth creation or theistic evolution positions to be rationally acceptable or even satisfying within a Christian worldview.  This analogy has been kicked around on the ASA mailing list before; I just formulated it into a particular narrative.

Jon Tandy

]]> By: William Powers http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2010/02/18/godless-embryologists/comment-page-1/#comment-272 William Powers Sun, 11 Apr 2010 02:07:09 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=187#comment-272 Jon: I'm not certain where your tongue with regard to this post.  I only note that there is considerable variation of perspective and commitments with regard to embryology. You may have heard of morphogenetic fields, but with regard to such seemingly vitalistic accounts there are still varying perspectives, including neo-platonic, Aristotelian, and nominalist, depending upon the ontological status of such organizing fields.  I have long thought there was no reason that "spirit" couldn't be subsumed into the "natural."  There's no historical nor philosophical reason to exclude it.  Apparently, this is becoming normal faire in embryology, with even stranger suggestions found in Rupert Sheldrake. I suppose the only relevance of this post to yours is that orthodoxy is stranger than we might imagine. bill Jon:
I’m not certain where your tongue with regard to this post.  I only note that there is considerable variation of perspective and commitments with regard to embryology.
You may have heard of morphogenetic fields, but with regard to such seemingly vitalistic accounts there are still varying perspectives, including neo-platonic, Aristotelian, and nominalist, depending upon the ontological status of such organizing fields.  I have long thought there was no reason that “spirit” couldn’t be subsumed into the “natural.”  There’s no historical nor philosophical reason to exclude it.  Apparently, this is becoming normal faire in embryology, with even stranger suggestions found in Rupert Sheldrake.
I suppose the only relevance of this post to yours is that orthodoxy is stranger than we might imagine.
bill

]]>