Re: Signs of Scientism

Merv, you write:

"Nature targets the weak, decrepit, and crippled with a cruel and indifferent eye, and yet we are called to be part of an "upside-down" kingdom where such disadvantaged as these are the especially valued brothers and sisters -- the "least of these, my brethren.".

But it this not anthropomorphizing nature? Cruelty and indifference may be terms proper to human psychology, but is this really a description proper to nature? I would not call this "evolutionary wisdom," as if nature "knows" what it is about. What you've raised fits more into theodicy: how could a loving and beneficent God create a universe in which such is "the natural condition"? And I don't believe that the answer lies in "original sin," as the YECs assert. The latter would lay God even more open to the charge of "cruelity and indifference."

Bob

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mervin Bitikofer
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:20 AM
  Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism

  Ted Davis wrote:
Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> 01/22/06 10:30 PM >>>asks:
        Herbert Spencer coined the term "survival of the fittest" didn't he?
Didn't Spencer's ideas actually predate some of Darwin's -- or at least
his publication? Sorry if this was all recently hashed and I missed or
forgot it. But social darwinism fascinates me even if in some morbid
sort of way.

Ted responds:
Yes, Spencer coined the term, which Darwin then employed in later editions
of the Origin of Species (but not the first edition). We can fairly assume
that Darwin regarded it as a fair summary of his idea of natural selection.

D himself was both more of a social Darwinist than is sometimes said (see,
e.g., Peter Bowler's downplaying of this in "Charles Darwin--The Man and His
Influence") and less than is sometimes said (see Michael Roberts' comments
on Richard Weikart's book a year or two ago). He realized that evolution
might have implications for social policy (and thus he was worried about
sending the best and brightest off to war), and at the same time he accepted
some conclusions of morality that go against selection (such as his
acceptance of vaccination for his own children, despite his expressed
realization that vaccination counters natural selection).

Ted

  So how do you respond to the charge that evolutionary wisdom (seems?) (is?) so contrary to the notion of Christian charity? Nature targets the weak, decrepit, and crippled with a cruel and indifferent eye, and yet we are called to be part of an "upside-down" kingdom where such disadvantaged as these are the especially valued brothers and sisters -- the "least of these, my brethren".

  The notion of how vaccination fits into this is fascinating also -- and overlaps with a previous thread, though I don't remember if we discussed these implications in that thread.

  --merv
Received on Tue Jan 24 06:38:59 2006