Re: Stereotypes and reputations

Craig, George,

George's response illustrates a bit where I think Craig's terminology
is proving unhelpful.

It seems that George is equating Craig's position with "philosophical
naturalism".

I believe that Craig means that "totally natural development" means
that only God's ordinary means of governing the universe are at work,
i.e. no miraculous interventions.
Thus #4 is still a possible view for a Christian holding to a full-
blown evolutionary creation view.

While I am much less dogmatic about #4, my personal bias is toward
accepting it. I see no fundamental theological or scientific reason
for thinking otherwise.

TG

On Jul 30, 2005, at 1:07 PM, George Murphy wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Rusbult"
> <craig@chem.wisc.edu>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Stereotypes and reputations
>
>
>
>> George says,
>>
>>> There is controversy among evolutionary scientists about some
>>> aspects of
>>> evolutionary theory. But there is no real scientific controversy
>>> about
>>> evolution itself.
>>>
>>
>> Whether there SHOULD be "no real scientific controversy"
>> depends on how
>> "evolution" is defined. A word overpopulated with meanings,
>> "biological
>> evolution" is used to mean:
>> >
>> How convincing is the evidence for each type of E?
>> no scientists (including yeCs) disagree with micro-E;
>> yeCs (but not oeCs) disagree with basic fossil progressions;
>> some oeCs disagree with full common descent, but I think the
>> evidence
>> for it is strong.
>> But are there no reasons -- none at all? -- to wonder about
>> Total Macro-E?
>>
>
> I don't think that an adequate definition of "evolution" for the
> purpose of discussion in the public arena is that hard to come by.
> You give 4 possible meanings for "evolution":
>
> (1) a micro-E change in the gene pool of a population,
> (2) evolutionary fossil progressions in geological contexts,
> (3) full common descent among biological organisms,
> (4) totally natural development (which I'll call Total Macro-E)
> of all
> biological complexity.
>
> (3) is closest to what informed people mean when they speak about a
> scientific theory of evolution. (But the qualification "full" is
> ambiguous. Does it mean that all living things have descended from
> a single common ancestor? Darwin didn't require that, referring in
> the closing paragraph of the Origin to "life ... having been
> originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms (N.B.) or into
> one".)
>
> People have known about the consequences of (1) - variations within
> species - for millennia without considering it to be "evolution" in
> anything like the modern sense. (2) is evidence for evolution in
> sense (3). & (4) - if I'm understanding what you mean by "totally
> natural" - is a philosophical interpretation of (3).
>
> When I say that there is no real scientific controversy about
> evolution itself I'm using the word in sense (3) - though of course
> that include (1) and (2) as well. A great deal of the confusion
> here, some a result of ignorance and some deliberate - comes from
> the insistence of many anti-evolutionists and many atheists that
> (3) implies (4). That is, of course, false.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Sat Jul 30 20:46:44 2005