Abstract
I am appreciative of the critical comments by Ruth Douglas Miller (Perspectives 46:1, pp. 68-69) and Lawrence Lyons (PSCF, 46:2, pp. 146-147), in response to my article, "The Real Meaning of Evolution" (PSCF, 45:3, pp. 182-186). I would first like to agree, not disagree, with their position that God could have used chance and random processes in his creation of the world of living things. Not only is this consistent with Proverbs 16:33, but, as we (the authors) said in Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, "evidence of random chemical processes is not necessarily evidence for philosophic accidentalism" (p. 33, emphasis original). Whether God did create living things through random processes is a subject for empirical investigation. We should not however, let either the fear of anti-theistic interpretation or the fear of repeating the mistakes of Cardinal Bellarmine or Bishop Wilburforce influence our objective judgment.