Dan Kuebler got his undergraduate degree in English—it was not until his senior year that he joined his first lab and fell in love with biology. He joins Jim on this episode to discuss what fascinated him about science, and how his subsequent career as a biology professor has impacted his faith as a Catholic believer. The conversation covers his experience as a graduate student at University of California Berkeley, later work on science and faith (exemplified by The Evolution Controversy , which Dan co-authored with Thomas Fowler), and the impact all this has on his approach to science and faith education as Dean of the School of Natural and Applied Sciences at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.
I found that very interesting but because I was doing some mundane business while listening I didn’t take note of what seemed most thought provoking to me. If I get a chance to listen again more single mindedly I may be back. Nice to get POVs from outside the Evangelical mindset and to hear an exploration of how those relate.
3 Likes
as a Christian And an ID fan, I liked this podcast episode. it gave me some food for thought.
1 Like
Thanks @Jesse_England. I’d be interested in hearing some of your thoughts once they’ve digested a bit.
1 Like
I find myself in agreement with Mr. Kuebler when he says
As you penetrate nature, you do get more and more understanding, but you also are faced with this bigger and deeper mystery, both at the subatomic level and up to you know, the biggest level of the galaxy, you know and the universe. So it’s like, you know, trying to understand God. We can understand God to some extent, but he—God is beyond us. He’s a mystery that we’ll never fully be able to exhaust that understanding of God, because we are creatures. And it’s the same way, I think, with his creation. We can penetrate it. We can understand it. We can move forward with our understanding, but there’s always—every time we figure something out that opens up even more questions. And there’s this mystery that we’re trying to grasp, both in creation and in the Creator.
That the cosmos should have unfolded in the way it has is pretty wondrous and, given what we think we understand on a smaller scale like the laws of thermodynamics, even miraculous. Where I differ is that I don’t see any rationale for separating a “Creator” from creation. But to the extent that we can wonder about such a thing it seems we can only imagine it from our own POV. With human design there is an understanding of what is possible, what is required and the requisite skills required to bring about the desired end. But if there is something guiding the cosmos toward greater states of complexity and freedom, it seems intuitive to me that it would have to be tied up in the cosmos itself. God the “Becomer” makes more sense to me than God the “Designer”.
But of course there is the matter of the resurrection and the hope of continued existence of our personal identities to be reckoned with in the Christian tradition. Seems like there should be a way to rescue the mythos or story by understanding it in less historical ways. As for an afterlife, if you had to choose between having your personal memories, dispositions and neuroses sucked out into a supernatural world -or- staying here in the cosmos as a part of the Becoming God, which would you choose? I think I’ll stay put with God and become whatever is next.
(I’m only through the break so far.)
3 Likes
I liked that part, too! There’s always more to know.
2 Likes
I like how you guys recognize how ID is a Big Tent and you treated Intelligent Design with the utmost respect the last part is which I have some disagreements with I’m no expert on the evolution of DNA (so please bear with me) but didn’t even Dawkins say DNA acts like programming code?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.