Re: Signs of Scientism

Doesn't some of this kind of discussion sort of skirt around the question of
social evolution, though? If you accept biological evolution, can you
reject social evolution, particularly as human behaviors increasingly can be
grounded in biochemistry and genetics? I'm not sure that those who seek to
draw moral principles out of nature do it so much by simple analogy
anymore. There's an evolutionary logic to it. This is a problem for me as
I wrestle with the concept of theistic evolution. If you reject social
evolution based on prior theological beliefs, aren't you doing the same
thing as those who reject biological evolution based on the same beliefs?

On 1/24/06, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> The way I look at this is that "nature" has its mission, its direction and
> its means. That is not to anthropomorphize nature - its designed-in ground
> rules and mechanisms accomplish remarkable things, achievements that would
> not happen without it being the way it is, and without which, we would not
> exist. We humans, on the other hand, are a different (dare I say, higher
> order) kind of component within that Creation, with a different mission. We
> can sense, reason and think abstractly, which allows us to anticipate, avoid
> or temper some of the blows from the unsensing and unreasoning dynamics of
> nature. Failing that, we have the capacity to love and provide comfort,
> healing (in some measure), restoration, redemption in many forms, and so on,
> when the forces of nature overwhelm our defenses (in some cases, those of
> the weak; in others even those of the strongest of us).
>
> In short, it would seem that one of our fairly unique roles as
> participants in Creation is to soften the harsh edges of nature's normal and
> necessary operations, and lend comfort and redemption to the innocents
> caught up through circumstance in its machinery. Nature must do what it
> does, but we alone have the capacity to forestall or ease the consequences.
> This is not far at all from the Biblical articulations of our mission among
> ourselves.
>
> JimA
>
>
>
> Robert Schneider wrote:
>
> 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 <mrb22667@kansas.net>
> *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> <mrb22667@kansas.net%3E> 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 13:43:55 2006